A Philanthropy at Its Best® Report

FUSING ARTS, CULTURE AND SOCIAL CHANGEHigh Impact Strategies for Philanthropy By Holly Sidford

About the AuthorHolly Sidford is president of Helicon Collaborative, a consulting company that helps peopleand organizations understand their evolving contexts and generate innovative strategies to pro-pel change through arts and culture (www.heliconcollab.net). She is a strategic planner, pro-gram developer and fundraiser with more than 30 years of experience working with diversenonprofit cultural and philanthropic organizations. Before starting Helicon in 2007, Holly wasa principal at AEA Consulting, an international consulting firm. Prior to that, she foundedLeveraging Investments in Creativity (LINC), a ten-year national initiative to expand support forcreative artists, and spearheaded the national research and planning on which LINC was based.Holly was program director for arts, urban parks and adult literacy at the Lila Wallace-Reader'sDigest Fund from 1992 to 1999, and has held leadership positions at the Ford Foundation, TheHoward Gilman Foundation, the New England Foundation for the Arts and the MassachusettsCouncil on the Arts and Humanities. Holly holds a bachelor’s degree from Mount HolyokeCollege and a management certificate from Columbia University. She lives in Brooklyn, N.Y.with her husband and daughter.

AcknowledgementsThe author is deeply grateful to the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy for theopportunity to develop this essay, and to the small army of artists, cultural leaders, researchersand funders whose powerful work advances democratic ideals and outstanding artistic practice incommunities across the country every day. Special thanks for their inspiring example to HalCannon, Cecilia Clarke, Dudley Cocke, Kinshasha Conwill, Maria-Rosario Jackson, John Killacky,Liz Lerman, Jill Medvedow, Sam Miller, Claire Peeps, Nick Rabkin, Judilee Reed, Henry Reese,Ellen Rudolph, Mark Stern, Elizabeth Streb, Steven Tepper, Steve Zeitlin and Jawole Willa Jo Zollar,among others too numerous to name here. Thanks also to the report’s Advisory Committee mem-bers for their thoughtful counsel, particularly Carol Bebelle, Janet Brown, Michelle Coffey, KenGrossinger, Justin Laing and Regina Smith; to Marc Almanzor and Steven Lawrence at theFoundation Center; to Niki Jagpal, research and policy director at NCRP, for her skillful guidancethroughout, and to Kevin Laskowski, research and policy associate, for his research assistance.And not least, I am indebted to my colleagues at Helicon Collaborative, Marcelle Hinand Cadyand Alexis Frasz, for their imagination and courage, which informs this project and all our worktogether. What strength this essay may possess reflects the quality of many others’ work and ideas;any errors of fact or concept are mine alone.

Cover:“Don’t Hesitate, Communicate,” Shoulder To Shoulder City-Wide Youth Banner Project, 2000. In partnership with the City of Los Angeles Human Relations Commission, SPARC and UCLA.

2271G 10/18/11 8:03 AM Page b

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................1

I. Introduction............................................................................................................................4

II. History and Context of Philanthropy in Arts and Culture ....................................................7

III. The Case for Change: Demographics................................................................................12Race and EthnicityEconomicsCivic ParticipationEducation and Health

IV. The Case for Change: Artists and Aesthetics ....................................................................16

V. The Case for Change: Cultural Economics ........................................................................23Revenue MixPrivate IndividualsPrivate Funding

VI. Pathways Forward..............................................................................................................27

VII. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................32

References ..............................................................................................................................34

Appendix A: Making Change Happen ..................................................................................38

2271G 9/22/11 9:37 AM Page c

Advisory Committee

Carol Bebelle ASHÉ CULTURAL ARTS CENTER

Roberto Bedoya TUCSON PIMA ARTS COUNCIL

Janet Brown GRANTMAKERS IN THE ARTS

Robert Bush ARTS & SCIENCE COUNCIL

Michelle Coffey LAMBENT FOUNDATION

Arlynn Fishbaugh MONTANA ARTS COUNCIL

Ken Grossinger CROSSCURRENTS FOUNDATION

Erlin Ibreck OPEN SOCIETY FOUNDATIONS

David Jones COMMUNITY SERVICE SOCIETY OF NEW YORK

Maurine Knighton THE NATHAN CUMMINGS FOUNDATION

Justin Laing THE HEINZ ENDOWMENTS

Lori Pourier FIRST PEOPLES FUND

Diane Sanchez EAST BAY COMMUNITY FOUNDATION

Barbara Schaffer Bacon AMERICANS FOR THE ARTS

Regina Smith THE KRESGE FOUNDATION

Lynn Stern SURDNA FOUNDATION

Organization affiliation for identification purposes only.

Executive Summary

Culture and the arts are essential means bywhich all people explain their experience,shape their identity and imagine the future.In their constancy and their variety, cultureand the arts allow us to explore our individ-ual humanity, and to see our society whole.People need the arts to make sense of theirlives, to know who they are. But our democ-racy needs the arts, too. The arts animate civilsociety. They stretch our imagination. Theyincrease our compassion for others by pro-viding creative ways for us to understand anddeal with differences. The arts protect andenrich the liberty, the human dignity and thepublic discourse that are at the heart of ahealthy democracy.

Every year, approximately 11 percent offoundation giving – about $2.3 billion in2009 – is awarded to nonprofit arts and cul-tural institutions. The distribution of thesefunds is demonstrably out of balance withour evolving cultural landscape and with thechanging demographics of our communities.Current arts grantmaking disregards large seg-ments of cultural practice, and by doing so, itdisregards large segments of our society.

A growing number of artists and culturalgroups are working in artistic traditions fromAfrica, Asia, Latin America and the Pacific Rim,as well as in new technology-based and hybridforms. They are using the arts in increasinglydiverse ways to engage and build communitiesand address the root causes of persistent socie-tal problems, including issues of economic,educational and environmental injustice aswell as inequities in civil and human rights.

Much of this work is being done at thegrassroots and community levels by artists andrelatively small cultural organizations. Yet, themajority of arts funding supports large organi-zations with budgets greater than $5 million.Such organizations, which comprise less than

2 percent of the universe of arts and culturalnonprofits, receive more than half of the sec-tor’s total revenue. These institutions focus pri-marily on Western European art forms, andtheir programs serve audiences that are pre-dominantly white and upper income. Only 10percent of grant dollars made with a primaryor secondary purpose of supporting the artsexplicitly benefit underserved communities,including lower-income populations, commu-nities of color and other disadvantaged groups.And less than 4 percent focus on advancingsocial justice goals. These facts suggest thatmost arts philanthropy is not engaged inaddressing inequities that trouble our commu-nities, and is not meeting the needs of ourmost marginalized populations.

There are some hopeful signs, however. Agrowing number of funders outside the arts –foundations with a primary focus on educa-tion, community development, health orsocial justice – are partnering with artists andarts organizations to reach their programmat-ic goals. The Arts and Social Justice WorkingGroup is enlarging resources for artists andorganizations doing this work, and is foster-ing collaborations and disseminating infor-mation about effective approaches.Americans for the Arts’ recent report, Trendor Tipping Point: Arts and Social ChangeGrantmaking, confirms that there now aremore than 150 funders active in this area.The National Committee for ResponsivePhilanthropy (NCRP) has identified more than140 arts funders who gave at least 20 percentof their funding to benefit marginalized com-munities. This growing cohort of funders areresponding in creative ways to changes inour country’s demographic profile, as well asto evolving aesthetics and cultural practices.

But much more can and needs to be donefor arts and culture funders to stay current with

1

Fusing Arts, Culture and Social Change

1

the changing field and relevant to the needs ofour communities. There are compellinghumanistic, demographic, aesthetic and eco-nomic reasons for foundations funding the artsto allocate more of their resources to directlybenefit disadvantaged communities.

• Demographic: Art-making reflects a soci-ety’s current demographic features as wellas its intellectual, spiritual, emotional andmaterial history. Both the products and theprocesses of the arts evolve in tandemwith the profile of a people. This factmakes addressing our country’s changingdemographics fundamental to effectivephilanthropy in arts and culture today.

• Aesthetic: Tradition bearers, activist-artists,teaching artists, hybrid artists – they go bydifferent names and they have differentapproaches, but together they represent agrowing segment of the artist population,and their work is expanding the scope ofartistic practice and the role of the arts inimproving the lives of disadvantaged pop-ulations. These artists are frontrunners inthe movement to use the arts to addresssocial, economic and political inequitiesand improve opportunities for all. They are

powerful and worthy partners for fundersof all kinds, and it is time to broadly vali-date and support their practice.

• Economic: The reverberating impacts ofthe recession, the current political climateand the widespread hostility to govern-ment spending threaten prospects for artsand culture funding. These trends are shift-ing the funding landscape for all culturalgroups, but they are most ominous for theartists and organizations based in andserving lower-income communities andother marginalized populations. The shiftsin public sector funding have both imme-diate and long-term implications for thecultural ecosystem, particularly for thesmaller, newer, edgier parts of that systemand the artists and groups serving our leastadvantaged communities. Private funderscannot replace the role of the public sec-tor, but public sector shifts make it impor-tant for private funders to reconsider thebalance of their grantmaking in the arts.

Reviewing data on these issues and artsfunding patterns not previously compiled,this report makes the case for changing artsand culture funding strategies. It suggests

2

NATIONAL COMMITTEE FOR RESPONSIVE PHILANTHROPY

2271G 9/22/11 9:37 AM Page 2

ways that all funders of the arts – regardlessof their primary focus – can move towardmore inclusive and responsive grantmaking:

• Sustaining the canons – funders primarilyconcerned with preserving the WesternEuropean canon can work harder toensure that their grant dollars directly ben-efit underserved communities; they alsocan recognize and support work in canonsoutside of the European tradition.

• Nurturing the new – funders focused onnew work can expand their understandingof and support for the expanding universeof artists and art forms being practiced inthe U.S., recognize art and social changeas a form of art-making and expand fund-ing for social change or social justice arts.

• Arts education – funders concerned witheducation and youth development canexpand arts education for children withthe least access to it; strengthen and growboth in-school and out-of-school pro-grams; and redouble efforts to affect poli-cies that will integrate the arts into basicschool curricula.

• Art-based community development – fun-ders concerned with community develop-

ment can expand support for endeavorsand organizations that braid artistic andcommunity goals, integrate artists and thearts into community planning and collab-orate with funders in other fields to inte-grate strategies and advance mutual goals.

• Art-based economic development – fun-ders concerned with economic develop-ment can ensure that artists and artsorganizations are integrated into theseprograms in ways that benefit lower-income and other marginalized popula-tions, support community-driven planningprocesses that engage underserved com-munities, and make certain that lower-income people are not displaced by eco-nomic development projects.

This report is a call for funders to reflecton their policies and practices in light ofdemographic, aesthetic and economic trends.It is also an invitation to engage in a freshfield-wide conversation about the purposeand relevance of philanthropy in the artstoday. We hope the result of this reflectionand discussion will be a more inclusive anddynamic cultural sector and, through the arts,a more equitable, fair and democratic world.

3

Fusing Arts, Culture and Social Change

Temporary chalkboardinstallation at the site ofHomer Plessy’s arrest inNew Orleans. The piecewas created as part of apublic Plessy Day event on June 7, 2008. Photocourtesy of Transforma.

2271G 9/22/11 9:37 AM Page 3

Culture and the arts are essential means bywhich all people explain their experience,shape their identity and imagine the future.In their constancy and their variety, cultureand the arts allow us to explore our individ-ual humanity, and to see our society whole.People need the arts to make sense of theirlives, to know who they are. But our democ-racy needs the arts, too. The arts animate civilsociety. They stretch our imagination. Theyincrease our compassion for others by pro-viding creative ways for us to understand anddeal with differences. The arts protect andenrich the liberty, the human dignity and thepublic discourse that are at the heart of ahealthy democracy.

Arts and culture cut both ways. They canreflect a society’s customs and fortify its con-ventions and ideologies or they can catalyzeprocesses of change and propel social andpolitical movements. Sometimes, these move-ments are for greater justice and equality, andsometimes for the repression of human rights.Here, we focus on the role of art in helpingus achieve justice and equality.

Every year, approximately 11 percent offoundation giving – more than $2.3 billion

in 2009 – is awarded to nonprofit arts andculture.1 At present, the vast majority of thatfunding supports cultural organizationswhose work is based in the elite segment ofthe Western European cultural tradition –commonly called the canon – and whoseaudiences are predominantly white andupper income. A much smaller percentage ofcultural philanthropy supports the arts andtraditions of non-European cultures and thenon-elite expressions of all cultures thatcomprise an increasing part of Americansociety. An even smaller fraction supportsarts activity that explicitly challenges socialnorms and propels movements for greaterjustice and equality.

This pronounced imbalance restricts theexpressive life of millions of people, thusconstraining our creativity as a nation. Butit is problematic for many other reasons,as well. It is a problem because it meansthat – in the arts – philanthropy is using itstax-exempt status primarily to benefitwealthier, more privileged institutions andpopulations. It is a problem because ourartistic and cultural landscape includes anincreasingly diverse range of practices,

4

NATIONAL COMMITTEE FOR RESPONSIVE PHILANTHROPY

Art holds a mirror up to society. Therefore, it is not surprising there is such along tradition of artists concerned with social justice: Charles Dickens,Augusto Boal, Mark Twain, James Agee, Walker Evans, Langston Hughes,Thomas Hart Benton, Wendell Berry, Leo Tolstoy, Frederick Wiseman, DianeArbus, Florence Reece, Ngugi wa Thiong’o, Ralph Ellison, on and on. In fact,the artist who at some time has not wrestled with the theme of justice insociety is an exception - how could it be otherwise given that the use andabuse of power is such a prominent part of the human condition, so near thecenter of our mortal experience. It is not a question of whether art and socialjustice are connected, but, rather, the forms and intensity of that connection.

—Dudley Cocke, Artistic Director, Roadside Theater

I. Introduction

many of which are based in the historyand experience of lower-income and non-white peoples, and philanthropy is notkeeping pace with these developments.And it is a problem because art and cultur-al expression offer essential tools to helpus create fairer, more just and more civic-minded communities, and these tools arecurrently under-funded.

The National Committee for ResponsivePhilanthropy (NCRP) promotes philanthropythat serves the public good, aids people andcommunities with the least wealth and oppor-tunity, and upholds the highest standards ofintegrity and openness. For more than 30years, NCRP has conducted research andadvocated for policies that encourage all foun-dations to affirmatively address inequality andexpand opportunity for disadvantaged people.

In 2009, the NCRP released Criteria forPhilanthropy at Its Best: Benchmarks toAssess and Enhance Grantmaker Impact.2

Based on extensive research and consultationin the foundation sector, the report recom-mended four criteria for enhancing philan-thropy’s impact on the public good – values,effectiveness, ethics and commitment – andoffered metrics for each criterion.

This report is part of a follow-up seriescommissioned by NCRP to encourage moreequitable grantmaking in different philan-thropic sectors. The series includes reportson philanthropy in education, health andthe environment, as well as the arts.3 In this

report, we make the case that more founda-tion funding in the arts should directly ben-efit lower-income communities, people ofcolor and disadvantaged populations,broadly defined, and that more resourcesshould be allocated to expand the role ofarts and culture in addressing the inequali-ties that challenge our communities. Thereare compelling humanistic, demographic,aesthetic and economic reasons to move inthis direction. By doing so, philanthropy canshape a more inclusive and dynamic cultur-al sector, as well as a more equitable, fairand democratic world.

5

Fusing Arts, Culture and Social Change

“ What is the essential skill set for anarts funder today? First: humility.Second: curiosity. An ability to listenand to look. And an ability toprompt debate and discussion. We are in a time of tremendouschange. No one has all the answers.Maybe no one has any of theanswers. We all need to get morecomfortable with being uncomfort-able and keep focused on strength-ening deliberative democracy.”

—Roberto Bedoya, Executive DirectorTucson Pima Arts Council

GRAPH 1: Share of Foundation Giving Going to the Arts

15%

10%

5%

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

12% 12% 12% 12%13% 13%

12%11%

12%11%

Source: The Foundation Center, 2011.

Author’s Note

“Art” and “culture” are two of the most

complex and debated words in the English

language.4 “Quality” – a concept essential

to any funding of the arts – also is a com-

plicated term, the definition of which

changes with context and point of view.

Moreover, ideas about who is an artist vary

in different cultural traditions, and become

more complex as the line between profes-

sional and amateur blurs, and as technolo-

gy and the Internet enable people to make

and distribute their own creative products

and access more easily the works of others.

For the purposes of this report, we define

the arts and culture broadly and inclusively,

and posit both the “sovereignty of con-

text” – that every community defines what

it values and enjoys – and “cultural equity”

– that, as folklorist Alan Lomax said, “The

expressive traditions of all local and ethnic

cultures should be equally valued as they

represent the multiple forms of human

adaptation on Earth.”5 If all art forms are to

be equally valued, this needs to be reflect-

ed in philanthropic practice.

6

NATIONAL COMMITTEE FOR RESPONSIVE PHILANTHROPY

Criteria for Philanthropy atIts Best: Values

To exert leadership

on behalf of

disadvantaged

populations,

NCRP's Criteria for

Philanthropy at Its

Best recommends

that foundations

provide at least 50

percent of their

grant dollars to benefit people from marginalized

communities, including but not limited to lower-

income communities, communities of color, disabled

people, women and girls, those who live in rural areas,

and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered people.

For foundations whose specific missions make this

goal difficult, NCRP suggests an alternate benchmark

– that 20 percent of grant dollars be directed to bene-

fit the designated populations.

NCRP also recommends that funders provide at

least 25 percent of grant dollars for advocacy, com-

munity organizing and civic engagement to promote

equity, opportunity and justice in our society.

7

Fusing Arts, Culture and Social Change

Unlike giving in most other fields, earlyAmerican philanthropy in arts and culture wasnot motivated by a desire to relieve suffering,help the poor or find systemic solutions topressing social problems. Starting in the late19th century, cultural patronage focused pri-marily on building institutions to preserve andpresent visual art and music based in the clas-sical European canon. There were several moti-vations, including the desire to promote civicpride, validate America’s position as a “civi-lized” world power, and confirm the authorityof the new urban commercial elite.6 Supportfor artists was limited, and what there wasfocused primarily on commissions for publicmonuments or works for private collections.

Early patterns firmly linked arts patronagewith class and social hierarchies. The found-ing patrons of institutions such as theMetropolitan Museum of Art andMetropolitan Opera, the Boston Museum ofFine Arts and the Philadelphia Orchestrawere wealthy individuals in the upper eche-lons of society and people striving for thatstatus. It was not until the work of theRockefeller Foundation in the 1950s andearly 1960s that philanthropic attention

began to encompass a broader cultural uni-verse, including community-based arts activi-ty and support for artists’ work independentof specific commissions.7

The first generations of cultural philanthropydid not support art in the service of socialreform. Early 20th century American artists bestremembered for their contributions to socialjustice – Jacob Riis’s photographs, for example,or Upton Sinclair’s novels and Ida Tarbell’sessays – received no philanthropic support.Jane Addams at Hull House and other settle-ment house leaders understood that preservingcultural traditions and providing arts educationwere important ways to empower immigrantsand give them agency in their new Americancontext, and these programs did receive somefunding from individual patrons. But for themost part, early cultural philanthropy did notsupport the democratic arts work of the settle-ment houses, or pay any attention to the artsand culture of Native American peoples,African Americans or immigrant groups fromChina, Europe and other parts of the world.Early arts philanthropy did not recognize thefull range of cultural expression in America atthe time, nor did it seek to serve the full range

II. History and Context of Philanthropy in Arts and Culture

The best known cultural donors – Boston’s Henry Higginson and IsabellaStewart Gardner; New York’s J.P. Morgan, Henry Frick and Augustus Juilliard;California’s Henry Huntington; Rochester’s George Eastman; Philadelphia’sMary Louis Curtis Bok; Chicago and Washington’s Elizabeth SpragueCoolidge, among many others – were different from those who organizedtheir endeavors through general-purpose foundations. … The kinds of assetsthey often devoted to their institutions – collections of art and homes ormuseums that housed them – led them to pursue very discrete philanthropicgoals, if indeed their goals can be described as “philanthropic” in the waysmany of their contemporaries were beginning to use the word.

—James Allen Smith, Vice President and Director of Research and EducationRockefeller Archive Center

of people and communities residing here. The field of cultural philanthropy has

evolved since the late 19th century and nowincludes grants with a variety of purposes,summarized in the chart below. Some ofthese purposes include an explicit focus onart and social change, or serving marginal-ized populations. But early arts patrons’ pref-erence for the European high art canon, andfor the institutions that reflect and supportsocial elites, continues to frame funding pat-terns to this day. The majority of current artsfunding supports larger cultural organiza-tions dedicated to classical European artistictraditions and American iterations of theseidioms. Both the audiences of and donors tothese institutions are predominantly upper-income and white.8

CURRENT PROFILE OF PHILANTHROPIC SUPPORTThere are more than 100,000 nonprofit artsand cultural organizations in the U.S. today,including thousands of groups dedicated toartistic traditions from Africa, Asia, LatinAmerica and the Pacific Rim, Native Americantribal cultures and groups serving rural com-munities and other underserved populations.9

The distribution of funding does not reflector respond to this pluralism. Groups withbudgets greater than $5 million represent lessthan 2 percent of the total population of artsand culture groups, yet in 2009, these organi-zations received 55 percent of all contribu-tions, gifts and grants.10 In 2008, the top 50recipients of foundation grants for arts and cul-ture received $1.2 billion;11 in 2009, the top50 received more than $800 million.12 Thisnational pattern is mirrored at the state level.In 2008, for example, nearly 30 percent of thearts funding by California-based foundationswas awarded in just 29 grants to large muse-ums, performing arts organizations and mediagroups.13 Many of the top recipients are ency-clopedic institutions that house or showcaseworks from around the world, but none ofthem is rooted primarily in non-European aes-thetics, or founded and run by people of color.

Another way to understand the overall giv-ing trends of arts and culture funders is to look

8

NATIONAL COMMITTEE FOR RESPONSIVE PHILANTHROPY

Purpose Activity supported

Sustaining the canons Preserving, presenting, inter-preting and building audi-ences for important worksfrom established artistic tra-ditions, and the institutionsthat house such work.

Nurturing the new Creating, presenting, inter-preting and building audi-ences for new works by liv-ing artists, and organizationswhose primary purpose is tosupport artists.

Arts education Educating young people andadults in using the methodsand techniques of different artforms, as well as art apprecia-tion and media literacy; andadvocacy for fair and equi-table access for children of allbackgrounds.

Art-based community Endeavors and organizations development that intertwine artistic and

community goals, seekingshared social benefits thatrange from building groupidentity and civic engage-ment to advancing civilrights and social justice.

Art-based economic Projects and organizations development that integrate arts and cul-

ture with economic develop-ment goals, including artsincubators, spaces for artistsand art venues, physicalrenewal of neighborhoods,arts-based entrepreneurshipand cultural tourism.

at the intended beneficiaries of grants.Relatively few arts and culture grants areexplicitly intended to benefit lower-incomepeople and the other disadvantaged popula-tions, or to support art and social change.NCRP’s recent analysis of the grantmaking bya set of 880 larger foundations between 2007and 2009 is illustrative. Of this sample, takenfrom Foundation Center data, 95 percent ofthe foundations (836) made grants with a pri-mary or secondary purpose of arts and culture.But only 10 percent of these arts and culturegrant dollars were classified as benefiting oneof the 11 underserved populations included inNCRP’s analysis, and only 4 percent wereclassified as advancing social justice goals.

Of the 836 foundations, just 18 percentdirected at least 20 percent of their arts fund-ing to benefit marginalized communities andonly 5 percent gave 25 percent or more to artand social justice programs. Only 4 percent(30 grantmakers) met both of NCRP’s bench-marks – giving at least 20 percent to benefitmarginalized communities and 25 percent toart and social justice programs.14

These data suggest that the greater a fun-der’s commitment to the arts, the less likely it

9

Fusing Arts, Culture and Social Change

GRAPH 3: But They Receive 55 Percent

of Contributions, Gifts and Grants

2%

GRAPH 2: Just Two Percent of Arts and Culture Nonprofits Have Budgets of More than $5 Million

55%

GRAPH 5: Percentageof Arts and Culture

Grant Dollars Classified as

Advancing Social Justice (2007–2009)

GRAPH 4: Percentage of Arts and Culture Grant Dollars Classified as Benefitting Marginalized Communities (2007–2009)

4%

10%

“ We have developed an apartheidsystem regarding access to our greatcultural institutions. Even with sub-stantial public funding in manyplaces, these institutions charge highadmission fees that make atten-dance very difficult for middle classfamilies, and completely impossiblefor lower-income people. These insti-tutions are filled with things that willexcite kids, and stimulate adults andfamily groups, but increasing num-bers of children and families arebeing denied access. Foundationsshould not support institutions thatare, in effect, exclusionary. Manyfoundations pride themselves onbeing “equal opportunity employ-ers.” Both public funders and privatefoundations should only be fundinginstitutions that are “equal accessinstitutions.”

—David R. Jones, President and CEOCommunity Service Society of New York

Source: Urban Institute, National Center for Charitable Statistics Core File (2009), 2011.

Source: National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy, custom analysis from Foundation Center data sets, 2011.

is to prioritize marginalized communities oradvance social justice in its arts grantmaking.Between 2007 and 2009, grant dollars donat-ed by funders who committed just 5 percentto the arts were almost twice as likely to beclassified as benefitting marginalized groupsas the grants given by funders who donatedmore than 25 percent of their grants to thearts.15 Arts funders whose main focus liesoutside the arts appear to value the catalyticrole of the arts in serving social justice goalsmore than funders with larger arts portfolios.

Any coding system is imperfect, and many“general purpose” arts grants undoubtedly havethe intention of benefiting the general public. Italso may be true that these figures do not cap-

ture some grants whose purpose is to broadenand diversify audiences for mainstream culturalorganizations, a portion of which do servelower-income populations, communities ofcolor and disadvantaged groups. In addition,these figures do not include data about grantsunder $10,000, which, if included, might shiftthe percentages. Nevertheless, the FoundationCenter database represents more than half ofall foundation grantmaking, and all founda-tions grants are coded by the same guidelines.That just 10 percent of arts and culture grantdollars are classified as benefiting one of the11 vulnerable populations included in NCRP’sanalysis warrants field-wide discussion andcalls out for change.

10

NATIONAL COMMITTEE FOR RESPONSIVE PHILANTHROPY

GRAPH 6: Arts and CultureFunders Giving 20 Percent or

More to MarginalizedCommunities

GRAPH 7: Arts and CultureFunders Giving 25 Percent or

More to Social Justice

GRAPH 8: Arts and CultureFunders Meeting Both

Benchmarks

18%

5% 4%

Metropolitan Museum of Art building

Source: National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy, custom analysis from Foundation Center data sets, 2011.

Trends in Arts ParticipationData from the National Endowment for the Arts’2008 Public Participation in the Arts Survey docu-ment that just 35 percent of American adultsattend “benchmark” arts activities, including liveattendance at jazz or classical music concerts,operas, plays, ballets or visits to art museums orgalleries, and this percentage has been decliningover time. The endowment is currently analyzingthe demographic patterns in the survey data, butthe tables in the published study confirm that themajority of those who attend benchmark artsactivities are white and upper-income. Almostthree times as many white people attended clas-sical music concerts as African Americans, forexample, and whites’ attendance at both musicaland non-musical plays was more than twice thatof Hispanics. Only in the category of Latin musicdid Hispanic audiences outnumber whites. Eightpercent of people with incomes between $40,000and $50,000 attended classical music concerts atleast once in 2008, while more than 22 percent ofpeople with incomes above $150,000 did so. Just

7 percent of people with incomes between$40,000 and $50,000 attended non-musical playsat least once in 2008, while 24 percent of adultswith incomes above $150,000 did so.16

Related studies by the endowment, alongwith research by Maria-Rosario Jackson, AlakaWali, Mark Stern, Alan Brown and others, docu-ment robust cultural activity taking place outsidemainstream cultural institutions, including inlower-income communities, rural areas andneighborhoods comprising predominantly peo-ple of color. As attendance at mainstream cultur-al institutions has been dropping, demand foractive participation in the arts, broadly defined,has been going up. The endowment estimatesthat close to 40 percent of U.S. adults are per-sonally engaged in making art themselves, par-ticipating through media and technology, andattending community arts events such as festi-vals, street fairs, church choirs or other events inwhich they can participate or showcase theirown work.

11

Fusing Arts, Culture and Social Change

GRAPH 9: The Greater a Funder’s Commitment to the Arts, the Less Likely They are toPrioritize Marginalized Communities or Advance Social Justice

All ArtsFunders

5% or Moreto the Arts

10% or Moreto the Arts

15% or Moreto the Arts

20% or Moreto the Arts

25% or Moreto the Arts

9.65%

3.94%

8.85%

3.56%

8.12%

3.24%

7.42%

3.02%

5.46%

2.06%

4.94%

2.16%

10%

6%

2%

Share of arts grant dollars going tomarginalized communities

Share of arts grant dollars going tosocial justice

Source: National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy, custom analysis from Foundation Center data sets, 2011.

Art-making reflects a society’s current demo-graphic features as well as its intellectual, spir-itual, emotional and material histories. Boththe products and the processes of the artsevolve in tandem with the profile of a people.This fact makes addressing our country’schanging demographics fundamental to effec-tive philanthropy in arts and culture today.

RACE AND ETHNICITYThe 2010 Census puts numbers to our collec-tive experience. The vital statistics of theUnited States are shifting at accelerating speed:• Latino populations grew by 43 percent

between 2000 and 2010, now comprising16 percent of our total population andmore than 40 percent in cities such asPhoenix (40.8 percent) Houston (43.8),and San Antonio (61).

• Asian populations also have grown, nowmaking up 5 percent of the total popula-tion and as much as 31 percent in SanFrancisco, 15 percent in Seattle and 13percent in New York City.

• Non-white populations grew by at least 20percent in every region, most dramaticallyin the South (34 percent) and West (29percent).17

• Immigrant groups contributed 30 percentof our total population increase in the lastdecade, and almost the entire upsurge inthe 25-54 age cohort. For the first time in

our history, the majority of foreign-bornresidents – nearly 80 percent – now comefrom Asia and Latin America rather thanEurope.18

• Among American children, the multiracialpopulation has increased almost 50 per-cent in the last decade, making it thefastest growing youth group.

• White people no longer are the majorityin four of our states; overall, more than athird of our population is non-white.19

Our population never has been so diverseand the contours of our cultural landscape areshifting accordingly. The face of U.S. culturetoday is complex, nuanced and multicultural. Itincludes Native American, African American,Latin American and Asian American artists andorganizations working in both ancient andcontemporary idioms, as well as the arts andtraditions of more recent immigrants fromAfrica, Asia, Latin America, the Middle Eastand the Pacific Rim. More than 300 languagesare spoken in the United States. Each repre-sents at least one cultural community, andmany of them sustain “classical” art forms and“folkloric” traditions as well as contemporary,often hybridized, practices. In addition, there isa steady exchange between the nonprofit andthe commercial arts, with influences flowingin both directions, and technology and themedia arts impact almost all forms of creativeexpression today.

NATIONAL COMMITTEE FOR RESPONSIVE PHILANTHROPY

III. The Case for Change: Demographics

12

The rapidly evolving global economy demands a dynamic and creativeworkforce. The arts and its related businesses are responsible for billions ofdollars in cultural exports for this country. It is imperative that we continue to support the arts and arts education both on the national and local levels.The strength of every democracy is measured by its commitment to the arts.

—Charles Segars, CEO, Ovation

The number of nonprofit arts organizationsin the U.S. has expanded exponentially in thepast 30 years, and a substantial percentage ofthe new groups focus on non-European cultur-al traditions. Take the Silicon Valley, for exam-ple. In 2008, 70 percent of the region’s 659cultural groups were less than 20 years old,and 30 percent of the new organizations wereethnicity-specific, focused on the cultural tra-ditions of India, Mexico, Japan, Korea, China,the Philippines and other places that reflectthe region’s changing demographics.20 WhileSilicon Valley may be somewhat ahead of thenational demographic curve, related changesare occurring in communities across the coun-try. Diversity is the cultural norm of our nationtoday, and we need to affirmatively validatethe entire spectrum if we are to see and under-stand our evolving nation clearly.

ECONOMICSThe economic profile of our people is chang-ing as dramatically as our demographics.Recent figures show that the richest 20 per-cent of U.S. households earn more than halfof total income and the bottom 20 percentearn less than 4 percent.21 The top 1 percentof households controls nearly 40 percent oftotal wealth. At least 43 million people (14.3percent of the total population) live belowthe poverty line. The number of people livingin impoverished neighborhoods is increasing,and exceeds 25 percent in places such asDetroit, Cleveland, Miami and Philadelphia.Many rural areas are disproportionately poor,and poverty rates reach or exceed 35 percentin parts of Appalachia, the Inland Empire ofCalifornia, the rural West and NativeAmerican reservations, among other places.22

Income disparity in the U.S. is greater than atany time since the 1920s, and puts us incompany with oligarchic nations such asRussia, Egypt and Pakistan.

These are shocking statistics and representworlds of stress and pain for millions of peo-ple, including more than 14 million childrenwho live in poverty.23 They also explain whythe vast majority of cultural groups, especiallythose serving lower-income neighborhoods,

remain small and financially challenged. Theenormous increase in the number of culturalorganizations in the past two decades is a tes-tament to the universal desire for arts and cul-ture in every community. The fact that three-quarters of all cultural groups have budgetsunder $250,000 is a testament to the disparityof resources available to support differentcommunities’ artistic aspirations.24

13

Fusing Arts, Culture and Social Change

“ We need to look at this as culturenot arts. We need more collectivephilanthropy – where many differentfunders, and different programswithin one foundation work togeth-er to advance the health of a com-munity or an organization. And weneed to lengthen our timeframesand change our calculation of cost.This is long-term work. It doesn'thelp to fund the 'hot' organizationsfor a short period of time and thenleave them. That does not buildleadership, change conditions orensure a sustained service.”

—Lori Pourier, President, First Peoples Fundand Chair, Grantmakers in the Arts

Indigenous Resource Network

Students with their masks at the Custer County Art & Heritage Centerin Miles City, Montana in an artist residency sponsored by theMontana Arts Council. Photo courtesy of Montana Arts Council.

2271G 9/26/11 9:30 AM Page 13

NATIONAL COMMITTEE FOR RESPONSIVE PHILANTHROPY

14

CIVIC PARTICIPATIONCivic engagement and democratic partici-pation are tied strongly to socio-economicstatus, and voting rates parallel incomelevels. The U.S. Census Bureau reports thatpeople with higher incomes vote in fargreater numbers than those with moremodest earnings. For example, only 56percent of people with incomes in therange of $20,000 to $29,999 voted in theNovember 2008 election, in contrast tomore than 76 percent of people withincomes between $75,000 and $99,999.25

Those with annual family income above$75,000 are twice as likely to register andtwice as likely to vote as those with familyincome of less than $25,000.26

These significant differentials in votingrates have consequences for public policy inall realms. It is heartening, therefore, that agrowing number of activist-artists and com-munity-based cultural organizations areworking explicitly to improve the representa-tion of marginalized communities in thepolitical process. Their efforts take multipleforms – using the arts in grassroots communi-ty organizing and nonpartisan voter registra-tion drives, high-visibility concerts duringelection and ballot campaigns, and otherstrategies. These arts initiatives stimulate civicengagement and encourage all people to par-ticipate in representative government.

EDUCATION AND HEALTHAlong with voting patterns, educational andhealth disparities also parallel income trends,as NCRP reports in Confronting SystemicInequity in Education and TowardsTransformative Change in Health Care andother studies document. There is a close cor-relation between achievement of a bachelor’sdegree and median household income.27

Educational inequality is one of the mostimportant contributors to the dramatic rise inincome disparity over the past 30 years.28

Our public education system is not preparingyoung people for the global economy, andlower-income and African American youth in

Consumer Choice

Cool Culture is based on the idea that all familiesshould be able to participate in cultural activitiesregardless of their ability to pay. New York City's manymuseums and other cultural institutions are rich withexperiences that stimulate curiosity and create impor-tant contexts for learning. Any child who does not haveaccess to these essential learning experiences risksbeing left behind. Developed by Gail Velez andEdwina Meyers and a planning group of educators,parents, government officials and museum representa-tives, with early support from BloombergPhilanthropies, Brooklyn Community Foundation andTaproot Foundation among others, Cool Culture is apartnership among 90 cultural institutions and 480social service agencies, schools and after-school pro-grams. Cool Culture provides admission passes thatenable more than 50,000 lower-income families asso-ciated with the social service agencies and schools toattend and participate in the programs of culturalgroups. Families are eligible to receive a Cool CultureFamily Pass if they have a child enrolled in a participat-ing early childhood program. Cultural liaisons at allparticipating childhood programs help families learnabout and use the pass. Cool Culture represents aninvestment in the future – ensuring that all childrengrow up with cultural exposure and that cultural insti-tutions continue to have diverse and growing audi-ences for their invaluable offerings. For more informa-tion, visit www.coolculture.org.

Cool Culture children and parents learn about collage with TheJewish Museum. Image courtesy of Cool Culture.

15

Fusing Arts, Culture and Social Change

particular are falling behind. Only half of allstudents who enroll in college finally gradu-ate, and rates have declined since the1970s.29 College graduation rates for AfricanAmerican students are significantly lowerthan others’, in some places as much as 20 to40 percent. Colleges with the highest propor-tions of lower-income students also have thehighest dropout rates.30

Thousands of artist-teachers, artist-activistsand arts groups are actively helping childrenstay in school and engaged in their ownlearning. This work is particularly importantfor the tens of thousands, maybe millions, ofdisadvantaged young people who are musi-cal, kinesthetic or spatial learners and havethe most difficult time in conventional class-rooms.31 Artist-teachers, especially, havehelped mitigate the erosion of arts educationin public schools. But recent research showsthat access to arts education has declineddramatically over the past 30 years, particu-larly for lower-income and minority children,as public schools have become more segre-gated and curricula have emphasized teach-ing to the test rather than cultivating chil-dren’s creativity, imagination and divergentthinking.32

Lower-income people also have the leastaccess to quality health care, which results inhigher rates of chronic disease and shortened

longevity, among numerous other negativehealth indicators. New research is document-ing the connections between people’s mentaland physical health and their opportunities toexpress themselves creatively and participatein the cultural traditions of their communitiesof origin. This research underscores theessential role that the arts play in the healthand well-being of immigrant communities inparticular.33

Activist-artists, tradition bearers and pro-gressive cultural institutions are using theirskills to illuminate our increasing culturaldiversity, and to challenge our increasingsocial, economic and educational divides.They are helping disadvantaged groups givevoice to their stories, their opinions andtheir aspirations for their communities. Theyare assisting people to exert their politicaland civil rights; communicate across racial,economic and political lines; and resolvedifferences without violence. These artistsand arts organizations are powerful agentsin the struggle for greater fairness and equi-ty, and they are catalysts for imagination,communication and simple joy – which allpeople need, regardless of their circum-stances. These resources are at every com-munity’s disposal and, with greater philan-thropic support, they can be deployed moreextensively and effectively.

Fusing Arts and Social Justice

The CrossCurrents Foundation marries the interests of its two founders - community organizing

and the arts. The foundation pursues social, environmental and economic justice by supporting

projects in three categories: 1) artists using their work as social commentary, 2) building bridges

between artists and organizations promoting equity, and 3) building the field of art and social jus-

tice. The foundation invests in projects that integrate the arts into community organizing and pub-

lic education campaigns. One example was Brushfire, a coordinated series of exhibits that were

mounted during the 2008 presidential campaign. In these shows – one in Washington, D.C., and

others in museums and alternative spaces around the country – visual and media artists raised

questions about a range of public policy issues as well as the nature of democracy in the 21st

century and, in a nonpartisan way, encouraged viewers to become more civically engaged.

2271G 9/22/11 9:38 AM Page 15

Artists are the taproot of our cultural system.As our population becomes more diverse, thenumber of artists and the variety of theirapproaches expands simultaneously. To stayabreast of evolving contemporary arts prac-tice and expand the arts’ positive role in thelives of disadvantaged groups, funders muststay on top of evolving definitions of “art”and “artist” and embrace work that has differ-ent sources, goals and means, and sites ofdistribution. They also may need to developsome new metrics of impact.

Artists constitute a marginalized popula-tion – they are relatively well-educated butpoorly paid and, in general, not validated bypublic opinion or professional status. U.S.labor statistics indicate that 2 million peopledefine themselves as professional artists.34

Many think this is a significant undercountbecause it does not include the tens of thou-sands of folk artists, tradition bearers, highlyaccomplished amateurs and others who donot self-identify as professional artists.

While their numbers are growing, artistsare not highly regarded. In 2003, a nationalpoll by Princeton Survey Research AssociatesInternational revealed that 90 percent ofAmerican adults value art in their lives, butonly 27 percent believe artists contribute alot to the good of society.35 Sixty percent ofartists make less than $40,000 in annualincome, more than 20 percent below theaverage for full-time workers.36 The majorityof artists derive less than $7,000 a year fromtheir artwork and 70 percent hold at leastone other job in addition to making art.37

Artists experience unemployment at ratesdouble that of other professions,38 and – likeother lower-income people – are under-insured. Four in ten artists do not have healthinsurance and a majority worry about losingwhat they have.39

Given artists’ central importance to thehealth and vitality of the arts and the tougheconomics of their work lives, philanthropyplays a key role in expanding prospects for

NATIONAL COMMITTEE FOR RESPONSIVE PHILANTHROPY

IV. The Case for Change: Artists and Aesthetics

16

Art is the heart’s explosion on the world. Music. Dance. Poetry. Art on cars,on walls, on our bodies. There is probably no more powerful force forchange in this uncertain and crisis-ridden world than young people and theirart. It is the unconsciousness of the world breaking away from the stranglegrip of an archaic social order.

—Luis J. Rodriguez, Founder, Tia Chucha Press

“ Artmaking exists along a spectrum. Atone end of the spectrum is art that is soembedded in its culture it is not calledart, and at the other end of the spectrumis art so separated from its culture thatthe more separate it is, the better it is.Each kind of artmaking has somethingpowerful to do, and it is exciting asthings get mixed up in the spacebetween. Of course, we have favoredone end of that spectrum for a longtime. If we could hold two ideas in ourhead at the same time, we could see thatwe will not disparage the value of thatpart of the field to bring more balance tosupporting other parts of the spectrum.”

—Liz Lerman, Founding Artistic DirectorDance Exchange

17

Fusing Arts, Culture and Social Change

them to pursue their work and serve theircommunities. Yet support for artists is a minorfraction of total philanthropic giving. The NewYork Foundation for the Arts’ NYFA Source,the most comprehensive listing of fellowshipsand other awards for artists, includes some3,600 award programs, which distributeapproximately $91 million in grants toartists.40 This is equivalent to less than 4 per-cent of the $2 billion in annual foundationsupport for arts and culture. Many foundationgrants to cultural institutions include fees forartists, of course, but given the freelance reali-ty of most artists’ lives, the ratio between sup-port for cultural institutions and direct supportfor individuals is significantly out of balance.

The data on fellowships and awards inNYFA Source were last analyzed as part ofthe Urban Institute’s Investing in Creativitystudy in 2003. At that time, more than 50percent of awards were small (under $2,000)and close to 80 percent were under $10,000.Artists can and do make a great deal out offew resources, but these award levels do notgo very far in supporting either a full art workor provide a living wage.

In addition, there are great disparities inthe philanthropic funds available for differentdisciplines. In 2003, for example, there weremore than 1,000 award programs for writersand literary artists. Yet, there were only 197awards for folk artists,41 the vast majority ofwhom work in lower-income communities,rural communities or in the cultural traditionsof people of color.

Artists working in classical European artforms remain a large and important part ofour cultural mix, and numerous artists work-ing in these traditions are using their skills todraw attention to social inequities. Bill T.Jones, Maya Lin and David Henry Hwang arejust a few among many. But as our demo-graphic diversity increases, so does the num-ber of artists and tradition bearers working inart forms outside the European classicalcanon. Many of these artists’ practices areessential to the identity of specific communi-ties and central to their systems of social andeconomic support, as well as their resistanceto forms of oppression and discrimination.

Native American basket-making and story-telling; Cambodian dance; Mexican mari-achi; Hawaiian hula; Brazilian capoeira;Blues, jazz and hip hop forms rooted in theAfrican American experience – these are buta few of the hundreds of distinct cultural tra-ditions being advanced by artists in our coun-try today. Each tradition has standards ofquality and mastery that are knowable andsupportable, even if they currently are unfa-miliar to foundations.

In addition to the artists and traditionbearers who are preserving and extendingnon-European cultural traditions, many thou-sands of others are contemporizing these art

“ In rural parts of Montana and otherplaces as well, artmaking is a sec-ond income for many people thatallows them to stay on the farm, onthe ranch, in their communities.Teaching music classes, sellingpaintings or craftwork – these areimportant parts of many people'slivelihoods, and another way thatthe arts contribute to communitycohesion.”

—Arlynn Fishbaugh, Executive DirectorMontana Arts Council

The Ashé Mural, work of the Ashé Visual Artists Guild, adorns the wallof a building adjacent to the Ashé Cultural Arts Center. It is one of themost photographed art pieces in New Orleans. Lead artists: Shakorand Ivan B. Watkins. Photo courtesy of Ashé Cultural Arts Center.

2271G 9/22/11 9:38 AM Page 17

18

NATIONAL COMMITTEE FOR RESPONSIVE PHILANTHROPY

forms, often mixing them with ideas and cus-toms from other traditions and with elementsof popular culture. These practices, too, havestandards of quality that are explicit, knownto the community of practitioners and theirfollowers, and available to be understood byfunders and others.

Additional changes in contemporary artis-tic practice also are at work. People continueto value the artistic products of the humanmind and hand – paintings, musical scores,plays, dances and other works of art. Butincreasingly, we understand that the processesof art-making are equally important – as toolsfor enhancing individual creativity, stretchingbrain plasticity, bridging differences and facili-tating social change. Art is an end in itself,but it also is a powerful means to achieveother goals, including effective education,community health and economic develop-ment, as well as greater political equity.

A hopeful sign in this regard is the growingmovement for art and social justice. Thismovement encompasses artists, communityorganizers, youth workers, funders and othersoperating at the intersection of artistic prac-tice and community activism. They are work-ing on a wide range of public policy issues -immigration, gay and lesbian rights, afford-able housing, prison reform, food justice andenvironmental racism among them. TheFoundation Center reports that funding for artsand culture-based social justice initiativesdoubled between 2002 and 2006, to $26.7million, and grew to $28 million in 2009.42

Americans for the Arts’ 2010 study, Trendor Tipping Point: Arts and Social ChangeGrantmaking, illuminates this expandingrealm of funder interest. The study is basedon 32 interviews and survey responses by228 public and private grantmakers, includ-ing 70 foundations and nonprofit organiza-tions that make grants. The report identifiesmore than 150 grantmakers that are support-ing arts for social change. A number ofnational foundations with significant artsportfolios have long-standing commitments tothis work, including the Ford Foundation,Open Society Foundations, The NathanCummings Foundation and Lambent

“Culture and art are critical componentsto transformation in marginalized com-munities. But if the evaluators anddecision-makers have a standard ofperformance and expectation that isinconsistent with the fundamentalpremises and values of the organiza-tion, then the institution will always fallshort in their eyes. Is there only onestandard we can apply to determine aproject or institution with promise?Don't we need a more imaginative setof lenses through which to look forand see transformation?”

—Carol Bebelle, Co-Founder and Executive Director

Ashé Cultural Arts Center

Foundations AligningThemselves with NCRP’sPhilanthropy’s Promise

To date, more than 70 foundations are signato-ries to a new initiative called “Philanthropy’sPromise.” Launched by the NCRP, the cam-paign acknowledges foundations that make apublic commitment to providing:

1. At least half of their grant dollars for theintended benefit of underserved communi-ties, broadly defined; and,

2. At least one quarter of their grant dollarsfor systemic change efforts involving pub-lic policy, advocacy, community organiz-ing or civic engagement.

As of now, arts and culture funders who havesigned on include:• The California Endowment• Ford Foundation• The McKnight Foundation• Meyer Memorial Trust• Open Society Foundations• Silicon Valley Community Foundation• The Wallace Foundation

2271G 9/26/11 9:30 AM Page 18

Foundation, but the greatest growth is occur-ring among community foundations, familyfoundations and small private foundations,some of which are relatively new to fundingthe arts. Approximately 20 percent of the 157funders identified in the study fall into thiscategory, including the Proteus Fund, PacificPioneer Fund, Quixote Foundation andValentine Foundation, among others.43

Trend or Tipping Point documents grow-ing foundation support for artists and cultur-al organizations that are braiding their artis-tic practice with community activism. It pro-vides a useful compendium of current fun-der practice and ideas for expanding thescope and impact of this work, but linkingart and activism and using the arts toempower the disenfranchised are not newphenomena in our country. Such practicesgo back at least to the days of the earliestNegro spirituals. As noted earlier, settlementhouses were engaged in this work in thelate 19th and early 20th century, and thesettlement house programs had a directimpact on the design of the arts initiatives ofthe Works Progress Administration and thedemocratic arts movement during the GreatDepression. Artist-activists were centrallyinvolved in the civil rights struggle of the1950s and 1960s.

Since the mid-1960s, leading practitionershave tested, refined and documented meth-ods for simultaneously making strong art andstrengthening communities:

• Judy Baca and Social and Public ArtResource Center

• Liz Lerman and Dance Exchange • Bernice Johnson Reagon and Sweet

Honey in the Rock • John Malpede and the LA Poverty Project • Jawole Willa Jo Zollar and Urban Bush

Women • Dudley Cocke and Roadside Theater • Ron Chew and Wing Luke Museum • Umberto Crenca and A.S. 220 • Bill Cleveland and the Center for Art and

Community• Linda Frye Burnham and Steve Durland

and Art in the Public Interest.

These and many others are among a gen-eration of path-breaking senior artist-activistsand art-based community organizers.

These pioneers’ proven practices are nowbeing taken up, adapted or re-imagined bysucceeding generations that include:

• Rick Lowe and Project Row Houses andTransforma

• Carol Bebelle and Ashé Cultural Arts Center• Nick Szerba and Thousand Kites, • Jeff Chang and Can’t Stop Won’t Stop• Eugene Rodriguez and Los Cenzontles

Mexican Arts Center• Gayle Isa and Asian Arts Initiative • Lori Pourier and First Peoples Fund • Jordan Simmons and East Bay Performing

Arts Center • James Kass and YouthSpeaks • Clyde Valentin and HipHop Theater

Festival • Theaster Gates and Marc Bamuthi Joseph

and hundreds of others.

Their methodologies of art and socialchange are documented in a growing body ofvarious resources including books, studies,

19

Fusing Arts, Culture and Social Change

Trend or Tipping Point: Arts & Social Change

Trend or Tipping Point: Arts & Social Change pro-vides valuable information about the scope of thisemerging field, motivations of different funders tomake grants in this area, funding strategies that arebeing used and barriers to further philanthropic sup-port for these efforts. It also includes profiles ofleading funders as well as a compendium of infor-mation about relevant affinity groups and otherresources, including the Arts & Social JusticeWorking Group of Grantmakers in the Arts. As thestudy shows, there is a clear opening to furtherstrengthen this emerging field of funder practice byexpanding its visibility, building funder knowledge,encouraging collaborations and participation byadditional funders and individual donors, and docu-menting impacts.44

20

NATIONAL COMMITTEE FOR RESPONSIVE PHILANTHROPY

Six Barriers to Equity in Arts and Culture Funding

Statements frequentlyheard from funders

“We care about artistic quality; this work's not good enough.”

“It's not art, it's social work.”

“We don't think the arts canor should be a strategy forachieving social goals.”

“There's no evidence ofimpact, or standards for thiskind of work.”

“This is all too new.”

“We don't have enoughmoney.”

Possible rationale behind thestatement

“This work is not familiar and wedon't really understand it.”

“This work doesn't meet standardsset by people outside of thecommunities where the worktakes place.”

“The people doing this are notpart of the social class we asso-ciate with high art forms; wedon't know these people; fund-ing these organizations does notconform with our world view.”

“This kind of practice will likelychallenge the status quo, it maythreaten our other professionalinterests, or we ourselves may bethe subject of criticism.”

“We are not familiar with the his-tory of this work, haven't readthe numerous reports or heardevidence about these programs'outcomes, nor actually seen thiswork in action.”

“We don't know the history ofthis field of practice.”

“We might have to reduce fund-ing to groups important to ourboard in order to accommodatethose we don't.”

How to improve knowledge andadvance equity in arts and culturefunding

Quality is an essential criterion infunding decisions, but what isdeemed “quality” may differ fromcommunity to community. Alongwith imagination, talent and skill, rel-evance and local context must beelements in assessing quality.

Recognize that there is a sociologicaldimension to all artistic endeavors(including “high art”). Think aboutthe interests and relative needs of thepeople that will benefit from thegrant.

Recognize that all artistic practiceand all arts institutions have socialgoals – and consider whose socialgoals or needs are being served withyour grants.

Examine the evidence of impact thatdoes exist; read the literature onmethodologies and standards; askproducers of this work about the tra-ditions in which they work and whattheir internal standards are.

Engage advisors familiar with thesepractices; talk with other funderswho have experience in these areas.

Raise strategic questions about thetension between legacies and equitywith the board. Ask organizationswhose stated aim is to serve theentire community to collect andshare evidence that they are doingso. Partner with other organizationsand funders, including state artsagencies, to maximize funding.

2271G 9/28/11 9:05 AM Page 20

21

Fusing Arts, Culture and Social Change

films and websites, and their practices arebeing taught in a growing number of aca-demic programs. There are seasoned activist-artists, community-based organizations andintermediaries working in or near every com-munity in our country.

Artist-activists and culture-based commu-nity animators who are focused on socialchange operate first and foremost on the spir-it, identity and hope of the people and thecommunities where they work. They helppeople give voice to their views and, in thewords of playwright Ariel Dorfman, “subvertthe suffocating official stories.”45 But many, ifnot most, of these practitioners are workingon more tangible matters, as well. They areshaping the physical characteristics of theirneighborhoods with art-based communitycenters, mural projects, public art installa-tions and other temporary and permanentimprovements to the visual fabric. RonChew’s report, Community-based ArtsOrganizations: A New Center of Gravity, pro-vides a valuable profile of this important andgrowing cohort of cultural institutions thatmarry high-level artistic work and effectivegrassroots community empowerment.46 Theirartistry is inflected with community develop-ment goals, and their community develop-ment work has aesthetic dimensions. Theyoperate across sectors and in partnershipwith organizations in health, education and

human rights, as well as economic develop-ment and community enterprise. Relatedresearch by Ann Markusen, Jeremy Nowak,Maria-Rosario Jackson, Mark Stern and othersalso documents the ways that such communi-ty-based organizations are reimagining andrevitalizing neighborhoods in places as differ-ent as Providence, R.I.; Fond du Lac, Wis.;Cleveland, Ohio; Boise, Idaho; Brooklyn,N.Y.; Elko, Nev.; and Los Angeles, Calif. –making them more livable, more civil andmore economically viable.47

Many of these organizations do not fit theclassic model of an arts institution, operatingmore on a collectivist or community organiz-ing model that embeds community engage-ment and responsiveness throughout theiractivities. Their missions are focused on qual-ity in both community development and art-making, and their impacts on community res-idents and community health are at least asimportant as the validation they may receivefrom the mainstream arts establishment. AsMark Stern and others have documented,their internal structures are more informalthan conventional arts institutions, theirmodus operandi more nimble and oppor-tunistic, and their resources almost never inline with their commitments.48 They canseem “irrational” if viewed by conventionalassessment criteria. But the point is that theconventional criteria do not fit because these

Suggested Resources

• Arlene Goldbard: New Creative Community(New Village Press, 2006).

• Robert Putnam: Better Together: The Report ofthe Saguaro Seminar: Civic Engagement inAmerica (Harvard University, 2001),http://www.bettertogether.org/thereport.htm.

• Liz Lerman: Hiking the Horizontal (WesleyanUniversity Press, 2011); also www.danceex-change.org/toolbox.

• Maria-Rosario Jackson: Culture Counts inCommunities: A Framework for Measurement(Urban Institute, 2002).

• Mark Stern and Susan Seifert: Social Impact ofthe Arts Project, University of Pennsylvania,www.sp2.upenn/SIAP.

• Linda Burnham and Steve Durland: Art in thePublic Interest, www.facebook.com/communit-yarts and www.wayback-archive-it.org/2077/20100906194747/http://www.comunityarts.net.

• Bau Graves: Cultural Democracy: The Arts,Community and Public Purpose (University ofIllinois Press, 2005).

• Jeff Chang: Can’t Stop Won’t Stop (St. Martin’sPress, 2005; Picador, 2006).

2271G 9/22/11 9:38 AM Page 21

NATIONAL COMMITTEE FOR RESPONSIVE PHILANTHROPY

22

organizations are not pursuing a convention-al mandate. The criteria needed to assess thesuccess of these groups must take intoaccount their distinctive ambitions and con-texts. Further, approaches to boosting theircapacity and effectiveness must be values-based and responsive to local circumstances.

Tradition bearers, activist-artists, teachingartists, hybrid artists – they go by differentnames and they have somewhat differentapproaches, but together they represent agrowing segment of our artist population and

their work is expanding the scope of artisticpractice and the role of the arts in improvingthe lives of disadvantaged populations. Inindependent projects and through organiza-tions they have created to advance this work,these artists are ensuring that the arts are cre-atively and affirmatively addressing social,economic and political inequities andimproving opportunities for all. They arepowerful and worthy partners for funders ofall kinds, and it is time to broadly validateand support their practice.

Advancing Black ArtsDespite the fact that Pittsburgh is more than 25 percent African American, the city lags in thepresence of stable organizations and individuals whose work focuses on the art of AfricanAmericans, Africa and the larger diaspora. The Heinz Endowments has a history of more thantwo decades of supporting multicultural organizations with project support and technical assis-tance. Recently, the foundation reassessed its overall arts strategy, one result of which is a newprogram, Advancing Black Arts. This program recognizes that race-related social and economicdisparities have left most black artists and cultural organizations with low levels of governmentand foundation support, few individual donors, little or no endowment income and small audi-ences. Moreover, few African American cultural groups have the working capital that is essen-tial for artistic risk-taking, program experimentation and healthy finances. Advancing Black Arts,launched in early 2011, has four components: 1) operating support for core African Americanorganizations with clear goals for artistic, management and governance; 2) fellowships forAfrican American artists; 3) project grants for organizations based in the African diaspora's tra-dition; and 4) field-building initiatives that enhance the visibility, artistic vibrancy and sustain-ability of the community of Black arts. For more information visit www.heinzendowment.org.

Artists and organizations, such as The African Dance Ensemble, have access to stronger regional resources throughthe Advancing Black Arts Fund. Photo credit: Josh Franzos for The Pittsburgh Foundation.

Every ecological system requires diversity ofliving forms, and its multiple parts must allbe healthy if the system as a whole is tothrive. The components of an ecosystem maycompete for resources, but they are interde-pendent and symbiotic. Biodiversity ensuresresilience in the entire system, and gives itgreater capacity to respond to change. Forthe most part, the smaller organisms exist onthe edges of an ecosystem, and this is wherethe greatest experimentation and geneticdiversity occurs. This diversity feeds andrefreshes the system and without the innova-tion and experimentation that takes place atthe margins, the larger community loses itsvitality.

The cultural sector is an ecosystem, andthe vibrancy and resilience of all its parts –especially of those at the margins – areimportant to the viability of the whole. Weneed healthy biodiversity – robust and well-functioning entities in all parts of the system.We need this to feed the development ofartistic ideas and the cultural imagination, toattract and engage audiences as broad andvaried as the American people, and to enableour cultural system to truly empower ourdemocratic one.

The economics of cultural philanthropyare extremely skewed and this restricts theability of thousands of artists and smaller cul-tural organizations to advance their practiceand contribute substantively to their commu-nities. This includes most groups that serve

lower-income communities; rural communi-ties; communities of color; gay, lesbian andtransgender communities and other under-served populations, broadly defined. Thereare many reasons why this is true. Some ofthese groups have difficulty because theirkind of art-making is not well understood orlacks production values traditionally associat-ed with quality. For some, the work may bestale and uninspiring or the requisite artisticand managerial leadership may be lacking.

But the underlying reason why most smalland mid-sized organizations struggle isbecause they have limited access to capital,especially to foundations, wealthy donorsand other sources that can contribute mean-ingful sums over sustained periods of time.This diminishes their annual revenue andtheir ability to build financial reserves, whichin turn constrains their programming andability to engage audiences, which then lim-its their capacity to raise funds to improvetheir artwork and fulfill their social missions.

REVENUE MIXData in the National Center for CharitableStatistics (NCCS) Core File confirm this reality.The NCCS Core File includes financial infor-mation on organizations that report at least$25,000 in gross annual receipts and file aForm 990 with the IRS. In 2009, there were39,871 arts and culture groups in the NCCSCore File. Of this cohort, groups with budgets

23

Fusing Arts, Culture and Social Change

V. The Case for Change: Cultural Economics

The top 1 percent have the best houses, the best educations, the bestdoctors and the best lifestyles, but there is one thing that money doesn'tseem to have bought: an understanding that their fate is bound up with how the other 99 percent live.

—Joseph E. Stiglitz, “Of the 1%, By the 1%, For the 1%” Vanity Fair, May 2011

under $500,000 generated half of their rev-enue from contributions and grants. Groupswith budgets of more than $5 million receivedfour times as much money – 60 percent oftheir revenue – from such sources (Table 1).49

Groups with budgets greater than $1 mil-lion are more likely than smaller groups tohave endowments and restricted funds, so theygenerate more income from investments.50

Information from the Cultural Data Project, forexample, shows that groups in New York Statewith budgets below $500,000 earn 3 percentof their revenue from investments while thosewith budgets greater than $5 million earnclose to 19 percent of their revenue frominvestment income.51

Smaller organizations earn a larger percent-age of their budgets from program servicesthan their larger counterparts, a healthydimension of their business models. For manysmall and community-based organizations,services such as teaching classes and work-shops are an important way to pass their cul-tural traditions to the next generation. Butoverall, most small groups attract fewer pro-gram participants and audience members thanlarger institutions, so these sources of incomealso are limited. Earned income potential is

further constrained for organizations servinglower-income populations, whose audiencescannot afford even modest ticket prices.

Table 2 illustrates data from the NCCS onthe cohort of arts and culture groups in itsCore File. This reveals the share of all contri-butions, investment income and programservices for organizations of different budgetsizes, demonstrating the disparity betweenthe smallest and largest groups. For example,groups with budgets smaller than $500,000represent 84 percent of the cohort, but theyreceived just 18 percent of all contributions,gifts and grants, while those with budgetsgreater than $5 million (less than 2 percent ofthe total cohort) received 55 percent of allcontributions. Similarly, groups with budgetssmaller than $500,000 generated 16 percentof all investment income in the cohort, whilegroups with budgets of more than $5 milliongenerated 59 percent of such income.52

PRIVATE INDIVIDUALSAs every arts and cultural organizationknows, giving by individuals is an essentialsource of support and it is getting moreimportant with time. Data on individuals’

24

NATIONAL COMMITTEE FOR RESPONSIVE PHILANTHROPY

TABLE 1: Arts Nonprofit Revenue Sources by Budget Size

Net Special Program Dues, NetContributions, Events Investment Services and Sales & Other

Budget Gifts & Grants Income Income Contracts Income

Less than $500K 51% 2% 3% 37% 6%$500,000-999,999 59% 2% 3% 34% 2%$1-5 mil. 60% 1% 3% 34% 1%More than $5 mil. 61% 0% 4% 35% 0%

TABLE 2: Distribution of All Arts Nonprofit Revenue By Recipient Budget Size

Net Special Program Dues, Net Total ArtContributions, Events Investment Services and Sales & Other Nonprofit

Budget Gifts & Grants Income Income Contracts Income Revenue

Less than $500K 18% 54% 16% 21% 78% 20%$500,000-999,999 7% 17% 6% 7% 9% 7%$1-5 mil. 20% 29% 19% 19% 17% 20%More than $5 mil. 55% 0% 59% 53% -4% 53%

Source: Urban Institute, National Center for Charitable Statistics Core File (2009), 2011.

Source: Urban Institute, National Center for Charitable Statistics Core File (2009), 2011.

2271G 9/26/11 9:30 AM Page 24

giving to artists and cultural organizationsserving disadvantaged populations is sparse,but the information that is available suggeststhat the imbalance in private foundationfunding is echoed in the giving patterns ofindividuals. A study of the charitable givingamong affluent households by The Center onPhilanthropy at Indiana University, for exam-ple, reports that 71.6 percent of high networth households gave to the arts in 2009,while only 7.8 percent of households in thegeneral population did so.53

In lower-income communities, contribu-tions by individuals often come in the formof gifts of time or in-kind services, and thisphenomenon may not be captured adequate-ly in the numbers. Researcher FrancieOstrower and others have explored the moti-vations of high net worth donors in the arts,54

but we know relatively little about why andhow lower-income people contribute. Thisdimension of the economics of the artsdeserves greater study and analysis.

Some innovative funding programs, such asthe Bay Area’s Fund For Artists, developed bythe San Francisco Foundation and East BayCommunity Foundation, have stimulated indi-vidual donors to give to artists and their organi-zations. And there is evidence that artists andsmall and mid-sized cultural organizationsserving disadvantaged populations are makinguse of new online tools such as Kickstarter.comand Indiegogo.com and other creative mecha-nisms to raise friends and funds. It remainstrue, however, that most artists and organiza-tions serving marginalized populations are at asignificant disadvantage in attracting meaning-ful sums from individuals.

PUBLIC FUNDINGPatterns vary from state to state but, overall,public funding for the arts is declining.

• In several states, recent cuts to state artsagencies have exceeded 50 percent, andthis year Kansas eliminated funding itsstate arts council altogether.

• Between 2001 and 2010, total legislativeappropriations to state arts agencies

25

Fusing Arts, Culture and Social Change

Connecting Artists andIndividual Donors

The Fund For Artists Matching CommissionsProgram (FFMAC) is a collaboration betweenThe San Francisco Foundation (SFF) and EastBay Community Foundation (EBCF) designedto build individual donor capacity and bringnew resources to artists. Conceived in 2004by John Killacky (then at the SFF) and DianeSanchez at EBCF, the program offered grantsof up to $10,000 for the creation of newwork, and required that funds be matched bycontributions from individual donors. Overseven years, the initiative raised more than$2 million and supported a wide array ofartists throughout the Bay Area. With seedfunding from Leveraging Investments inCreativity (LINC) and the Ford Foundation,Hewlett Foundation, James IrvineFoundation, Surdna Foundation and PhyllisC. Wattis Foundation, FFAMC has stimulatedmore 4,600 individual donors to contributein excess of $1 million to more than 150artists’ projects, involving 240 artists. Formany of these donors, the FFMAC was theirfirst experience contributing to artists and tothe creation of new work. For hundreds ofthem, it has created a lasting appetite for thiskind of philanthropy. For more information,visit http://www.sff.org/programs/arts-culture/fund-for-artists.

Fund For Artists Matching Commissions grantee, the SangatiEnsemble, at a house concert. Photo by: Harsal Jawale.

NATIONAL COMMITTEE FOR RESPONSIVE PHILANTHROPY

26

declined 39 percent, from $450.6 millionto $276 million.

• Direct expenditures on the arts by localgovernments have declined by almost 20percent in the past three years, down$169.5 million – from $858 million in2008 to $688 million in 2010.55

• Calculating these drops cumulatively,since 2001 the arts sector has forgonemore than $1.2 billion in state supportalone, not adjusting for inflation.

Because of their broad mandate, public artsagencies – federal, state and local – have beenmore accessible than private foundations tocultural groups serving lower-income commu-nities, communities of color, rural communi-ties, other marginalized groups and – until theearly 1990s – to artists. Public funding pro-grams such as the Folk Arts and Expansion Artsprograms of the National Endowment for theArts and the Cultural Equity Program of theSan Francisco Arts Commission pioneeredapproaches in supporting the work of artistsand arts organizations in these communities.The state arts agencies involved in the STARTProgram (State Arts Partnership for CulturalParticipation), funded by the WallaceFoundation from 2001 to 2005, refined theconcept of the public value of the arts anddrew attention to the importance of genuinelyserving diverse populations, including disad-vantaged groups.56

Public sources of funding are extremelyimportant to smaller organizations and thoseserving disadvantaged populations, in partbecause public funders offer general operat-ing support on an ongoing basis, and in partbecause many private sources – foundation,corporate and individual – look for evidenceof public funding as a prerequisite for theirown grants.

Limited access to gifts and grants fromphilanthropic sources means that manysmaller organizations, including those servingdisadvantaged populations, are more depend-ent on public funding than larger groups. Arecent, informal study by San FranciscoGrants for the Arts based on Cultural DataProject (CDP) information, for example,

revealed that Bay Area groups with budgetsless than $250,000, on average, received 24percent of their funding from local, state andfederal government sources while, on aver-age, public funding accounted for only 6 per-cent of revenue for groups with budgets morethan $1 million.57 A similar review of CDPdata for cultural organizations in Harlem andEast Harlem showed a recent pattern: groupswith budgets less than $250,000 received 36percent of their contributed revenue fromgovernment sources while groups with budg-ets more than $1 million received 20 percentof their revenue from these sources.58

The cuts in public funding mean that fewerorganizations and artists will be funded, andthat the grants that are made will be smaller.This has direct impact on cultural groups andtheir programs. But there are secondary effectson private funders, who will see a jump in theneeds of cultural groups and increases inrequests for funding. Also, state and localpanel processes and vetting systems have pro-vided an important filter for private funders,giving a seal of approval that assured privatefunders of a group’s essential quality. As onefoundation officer put it, “With the cutbacks,now we won’t know if the absence of publicsupport reflects a group’s lack of quality or thestate’s lack of money. This will cause us to bemore cautious in our decisions.”

The reverberating impacts of the reces-sion, the current political climate and thewidespread hostility to government spendingthreaten prospects for arts and culture fund-ing. These trends are shifting the fundinglandscape for all cultural groups, but they aremost ominous for the artists and organiza-tions based in and serving lower-incomecommunities and marginalized populations.Private funders cannot replace the role of thepublic sector, but the shifts in public sectorfunding have both immediate and long-termimplications for the cultural ecosystem, par-ticularly for the smaller, newer, edgier partsof that system and the artists and groups serv-ing our least advantaged communities. This isanother compelling reason for private fundersto reconsider the balance of their grantmak-ing in the arts.

27

Fusing Arts, Culture and Social Change

The face of art and culture in the UnitedStates is changing. Our question is whethercultural philanthropy will change with it.Currently, there is a serious imbalancebetween the allocation of philanthropicfunding and the diversity and distribution ofarts and cultural resources across our com-munities. This imbalance diminishes the abil-ity of thousands of artists and cultural organ-izations to enrich the lives of countless peo-ple and neighborhoods. It neglects the cre-ative voices of millions and it limits thecapacity of art and culture to address themost pressing issues of our day. The asym-metry disadvantages all of us by restricting

the types of cultural expressions we experi-ence, and thus our understanding of whatour culture is becoming.

Understanding our history can help us toovercome it. The history of arts philanthropyin the United States is largely a story ofbuilding institutions, and preserving or creat-ing artistic objects and products. We havepaid far less attention to strengthening peopleand communities through artistic processes.In the past 100 years, we have made a sci-ence of developing nonprofit arts institutionsbut we are still relative neophytes in under-standing the role of the arts in catalyzingindividual and community capacity, and sus-

VI. Pathways Forward

We are what we do, especially what we do to change what we are.

—Eduardo Galeano, novelist

Culture for Change

The Culture for Change Project (CfC), now a joint initiative by The Boston Foundation and the Barr Foundation,was launched in 2007 by the latter in partnership with Health Resources in Action (formerly The MedicalFoundation). The program supports ongoing collaborations among artists, youth workers and young people,using the arts to build leadership and self-esteem among children and teens of all races and ethnicities andengage them in addressing social change. CfC emerged as a response tothe desire of Out-of-School Time (OST) staff members to enhance theirprogramming with more creative and effective tools. The Barr Foundationsupported a year-long research effort involving OST staff, youth workers,local artists and young people. The resulting data showed the overlaps ininterests and needs and were used to shape the program. CfC helps OSTstaff and youth workers expand their knowledge of youth developmentand the creativity of their programming. It enables local arts organizationsand artists to meet the needs of the city’s disenfranchised youth throughprojects that explore and celebrate the positive aspects of youth culture.And the program responds to young people’s articulated desire for morecultural activities and a broader range of out of school time options.

Young participants at the Upham's Corner Community Center work ona stained glass sculpture. Photo by Lana Jackson.

taining individual and community health.Our historical concentration on institutionsand products interferes with contemporaryphilanthropy’s ability to reach a broad cross-section of the American public and create amuch larger context and field of impact forthe arts in our society today.

A growing number of funders – some withlong legacies in the arts and many whose pri-mary interest lies in other areas such as edu-cation, health care, human rights and theenvironment – are supporting efforts toexpanding the role of the arts, especially indisadvantaged communities, and to integratethe arts into processes of social change. Thesefunders are having notable success in helpingnurture the diverse cultural traditions alive inour increasingly multicultural communities.They are helping to strengthen the social andphysical fabric of marginalized communities,engage young people in their own education,and spur people’s engagement in civic issuesand the democratic process.

But every arts and culture-focused founda-tion, regardless of mission, can make equity acore principle of its grantmaking by payingmore attention to the people who will benefitfrom its grants and the processes by which thearts and culture provide those benefits.59

Quality is still an important consideration inall funding of the arts, but quality is not andnever has been an absolute. Quality must beconsidered in the terms of the artistic or cul-tural tradition being pursued, and in light of

PLACE (Place, Land, Arts,Culture and Engagement)

In 2010, the Tucson Pima Arts Council launched the

PLACE initiative, with support from The Kresge

Foundation, to support arts-based civic engagement

projects that address contested and complex social

issues in the community. An array of artists and

organizations was invited to submit proposals for

projects to address social/political concerns, equity,

justice and community well-being. Projects involving

neighborhoods, arts organizations, artists, schools and

community organizations across Pima County were

supported. A sampling includes:

• Finding Voice Program, Catalina Magnet High

School – refugee and immigrant students used

autobiographical writing and photography to

record their experiences while participating in

civic engagement projects.

• Filmmaker Jaime A. Lee developed a website

and short film about the power of our stories to

connect us, prompting conversations between

members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans-

gender community and their neighbors.

• NEW ARTiculations Dance Theater created a com-

munity-based dance performance and offered

workshops for children, youth and adults that

raised awareness of issues of water scarcity, ripari-

an ecosystems and Sonoran Desert ecology.

• Pan Left Productions involved neighborhood

organizations in offering media literacy and pro-

duction courses for youth, homeless people and

those living in poverty.

• Toltecali Academy/Barrio Sustainability Projects

paired students and community members to study

neighborhood environmental issues such as TCE

(trichloroethylene), a ground water contaminant,

and create a mural reflecting their community

work.

28

NATIONAL COMMITTEE FOR RESPONSIVE PHILANTHROPY

“ In my experience, board membersmay be more open to discussion ofequity issues, including race and class,than would appear. Sometimes, it'sthe staff that gets in the way becausewe are hesitant to raise such sensitiveissues, or we don't know how tochange policies and practices if theboard endorses a stronger commit-ment to equitable grantmaking.”

—- Justin Laing, Program OfficerThe Heinz Endowments

relevance to and impact on audiences. In thearts, risk-taking and imagination are at least asimportant as virtuosity, perhaps never more sothan the present. More artists and community-driven arts organizations are advancing thearts in ways that contribute to democratic par-ticipation and civic engagement. More privatefunders can use their imaginations, and takemore risks, to do the same.

As noted at the start of this report, the pur-poses of arts and culture funding can begrouped broadly into five areas: sustainingthe canons, nurturing the new, arts educa-tion, art-based community development andart-based economic development. In prac-tice, many grants are made with several ofthese purposes in mind. But teasing themapart can help clarify the aims of each kindof philanthropic investment and reveal thepossibilities in every area for grantmakingthat will benefit underserved communitiesand promote greater equity, opportunity andjustice. Further, it reveals pathways for cultur-al groups, artists and cultural funders to findcommon cause with foundations in sectorssuch as community development, education,social justice, human rights and publichealth, as well as the arts.

The possibilities for new approaches are countless and each foundation can findits own inventive path. On the followingpages we pose a few questions to stimulatediscussion.

29

Fusing Arts, Culture and Social Change

2271G 9/22/11 9:38 AM Page 29

A Funding Typology and Pathways to ChangeAre at least 20 percent of our funds directly benefiting lower-income and other disadvantaged communities?Are at least 25 percent of our funds promoting equity, opportunity and justice in our society?

30

NATIONAL COMMITTEE FOR RESPONSIVE PHILANTHROPY

PHILANTHROPIC FOCUS: Preserving, presenting, interpreting and building audiences for importantworks from established traditions, and the institutions and buildings that house such work.

QUESTIONS THAT LEAD TO INCREASED EQUITY: • Do we recognize and support canons outside the Western European tradition? • Are we supporting organizations focused on Native American, African American, Asian American

and Latin American traditions?• Are we ensuring audiences' access to works in all the classical traditions – from Asia, Africa, the

Pacific Rim as well as Europe?• Are we supporting "demand side" strategies to build audiences – by funding community groups,

vouchers or other mechanisms that give disadvantaged consumers more cultural choices?

PHILANTHROPIC FOCUS: Creating, presenting, interpreting and building audiences for new works byliving artists and tradition bearers, and the institutions and buildings that house such work.

QUESTIONS THAT LEAD TO INCREASED EQUITY: • Do our programs recognize the diversity of art forms being created in the U.S.?• Are we recruiting actively applications from artists and organizations working outside the European canon?• Are our proposals judged by people with expertise in diverse art forms and different aesthetic traditions?• Do we recognize art and

social change as a formof art making?

SUSTAINING THE CANONS

NURTURING THE NEW

"Creative SectorEcology" from Creativity

and NeighborhoodDevelopment: Strategies

for CommunityInvestment by JeremyNowak (2007). Image

courtesy of TheReinvestment Fund.

31

Fusing Arts, Culture and Social Change

PHILANTHROPIC FOCUS: Educating people in the methods and techniques of different art forms, aswell as art appreciation and media literacy, and advocacy for fair and equitable access for children ofall backgrounds.

QUESTIONS THAT LEAD TO INCREASED EQUITY: • Are artists from diverse cultural backgrounds involved in the programs we fund?• Do our programs expand students' awareness of multiple cultural traditions and forms of art making?• Is our funding providing arts education to the children who have least access to it?• Are we working at the policy level to integrate the arts in basic school curricula for more equitable

access to arts education?

PHILANTHROPIC FOCUS: Endeavors and organizations that intertwine artistic and community goalsand seek shared social benefits from building group identity and civic engagement to advancing civilrights and social justice.

QUESTIONS THAT LEAD TO INCREASED EQUITY: • Do our definitions of quality consider artistic process as well as artistic product?• Are we funding both arts and non-arts organizations doing this work?• Are we encouraging others to invest by sharing evidence of impact and best practices? • Are we collaborating with funders in other fields to integrate strategies and reach mutual goals?• Are we investing in intermediaries who can expand impact?

PHILANTHROPIC FOCUS: Projects and organizations that integrate arts and culture with economicdevelopment goals, including arts incubators, spaces for artists and art venues, physical renewal ofneighborhoods and arts-based entrepreneurship and cultural tourism.

QUESTIONS THAT LEAD TO INCREASED EQUITY: • Are lower-income and other disadvantaged people benefiting directly from our investments?• Are we supporting community-driven processes that genuinely engage lower-income or non-white

populations?• Are we protecting lower-income residents from being displaced by development projects?• Are we encouraging others to invest by sharing evidence of impact and best practice?• Are we collaborating with both public and private agencies, integrating our strategies and furthering

each others' goals?

ARTS EDUCATION

ART-BASED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

ART-BASED ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

NATIONAL COMMITTEE FOR RESPONSIVE PHILANTHROPY

Abetted by technology, traditional ideasabout authority and leadership are beingchallenged in all aspects of our society.Philanthropy is not immune to this trend. Theproliferation of countless forms of “citizen’sphilanthropy” – giving circles, commissioningclubs, online services and crowd sourcingvehicles in grantmaking, among other mech-anisms – reflects this phenomenon. In anincreasingly crowded philanthropic market-place, foundation leadership no longer

derives from the age-old sources of authority– the size of one’s endowment and historicreputation. A foundation’s leadership todaystems from its values, its relevance and itsimpact, and its effective engagement with thepressing issues of our time.

This is a pivotal moment for the nonprofitcultural sector. Audiences for mainstreaminstitutions are shrinking. The public supportinfrastructure is threatened. The technologicalmeans to both create and access the arts are

VII. Conclusion

The Nicaraguan poet and priest Ernesto Cardenal has told us that the lovepoems of today will be the basis of constitutions tomorrow. But we have notbeen addressing this transition. How can a love poem, an artistic act, trickleup to reconfigure institutions? Sometimes as artists we have stopped at thepoem, at the object, and not … [addressed] the rigidity of institutionalthinking. That is now the challenge for all of us.

—from interview with Teddy Cruz at “Fresh Angle: A Ford Forum on the Arts,” May 2011

32

"The State of Things" – an ice sculpture of the word "Democracy" on the grounds of the St. Paul, Minn. capitol onthe first day of the Republican National Convention, 1 September 2008. It marked the beginning of a march bymore than 10,000 demonstrators protesting the war in Iraq, homelessness and poverty. Sculpture and photo byLigorano/Reese, part of BrushFire, a project of Provisions Library in collaboration with the UnConvention.

33

Fusing Arts, Culture and Social Change

proliferating and the declining cost of muchcommercial arts and entertainment makesthese options increasingly attractive. The via-bility of the traditional nonprofit businessmodel is being questioned. Yet, the numberand kinds of artists and nonprofit culturalgroups continue to grow, and their artisticdiversity continues to increase. We knowmore than we ever have about the multipleroles that art and culture play in buildinghealthy individuals and healthy communities.And we know with greater certainty that allindividuals, and all communities, need thecreative tonic that the arts provide.

All these changes create a pivotal momentfor funders, too. This is a time to reflect onvalues, relevance and impact, not only forphilosophical reasons but for strategic ones,as well – to enhance our success. Strategymust be shaped by mission and by purpose,but it must also be informed by evolvingexternal conditions and by one’s operatingcontext. Our context is changing, fast. Forarts funders to be strategic and impactfulrequires intensifying efforts to understand thedemographic, technological and aestheticshifts that are taking place in our country. Itrequires embracing a greater diversity oforganizational and business models, andknowing how to capitalize and develophealthy organizations of all kinds. It requiresseeing the whole cultural ecology andrethinking core premises about who andwhat is funded, the nature and length ofcommitments and the measures by which weassess success. It requires re-examining someconventional wisdom and some long-heldassumptions. It means asking, in an authenticway, “What is the purpose of philanthropy inthe arts today?”

This is a real challenge. But it also is a realopportunity to engage each other and our var-ious partners in a fresh and genuinely con-temporary discussion about how we can fusearts, culture and social change. The outcomeof such discourse and debate can be a moreinclusive and dynamic cultural sector, and amore equitable, fair and democratic world.

“ This work is difficult. We need to beclear and candid about the chal-lenges, and the contradictions. Thereare pitfalls, and errors will be made. Itcan't be done on the cheap or on thequick. But we need to struggle withthese issues, honestly and together.Otherwise, as funders we risk becom-ing completely irrelevant.”

—-Michelle Coffey, Executive DirectorLambent Foundation

2271G 9/22/11 9:38 AM Page 33

34

NATIONAL COMMITTEE FOR RESPONSIVE PHILANTHROPY

References

1. The Foundation Center, “Distribution of Foundation Grants by Subject Categories, circa 2009” (NewYork: The Foundation Center, 2011), http://foundationcenter.org/findfunders/statistics/pdf/04_fund_sub/2009/10_09.pdf. Based on all grants of $10,000 or more awarded by a national sample of 1,384 larg-er U.S. foundations (including 800 of the 1,000 largest ranked by total giving).

2. Niki Jagpal, Criteria for Philanthropy at Its Best (Washington, D.C.: National Committee forResponsive Philanthropy, 2009). See: http://www.ncrp.org/paib.

3. Kevin Welner and Amy Farley, Confronting Systematic Inequity in Education, and Terri Langston,Towards Transformative Change in Health Care (Washington, D.C.: National Committee forResponsive Philanthropy, 2010 and 2011). These reports are available at www.ncrp.org/paib. TheNCRP report on environmental grantmaking will be published in 2012.

4. Raymond Williams, Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society, Rev. Ed. (New York: OxfordUniversity Press, 1983).

5. Association for Cultural Equity, “Alan Lomax,” 2011,http://www.culturalequity.org/alanlomax/ce_alanlomax_index.php. See also Alan Lomax, “An Appealfor Cultural Equity,” 1972, http://www.culturalequity.org/ace/ce_ace_appeal.php.

6. See Neil Harris, The Artist in American Society: The Formative Years, 1790-1860 (Chicago, Ill.:University of Chicago Press, 1982); W. McNeil Lowry, “The Arts and Philanthropy: Motives thatprompt the philanthropic act,” remarks originally given at Brandeis University in 1962, published inGrantmakers in the Arts Reader (Fall 2003); Lawrence W. Levine, Highbrow/Lowbrow: TheEmergence of Cultural Hierarchy in America (Boston, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1988).

7. The Rockefeller Foundation’s work in the late 1950s seeded the ground for the establishment of theNational Endowment for the Arts in 1965, and the Ford Foundation’s work in the mid-1960s createda template for philanthropic investments by myriad other foundations in the following decades.

8. National Endowment for the Arts, 2008 Survey of Public Participation in the Arts, Research Report#49, 2009.

9. According to the Internal Revenue Service, as of November 2010, there were 104,767 arts, cultureand humanities 501(c)3 public charities.

10. Urban Institute, National Center for Charitable Statistics Core File [2009], 2011,http://nccsdataweb.urban.org. The Core File contains information on 501(c)3 public charities thatreport gross receipts of at least $25,000 and file Form 990 or Form 990EZ. The author believes that inthe whole country there are not more than 30 cultural institutions dedicated primarily to the arts andculture of people of color or rural populations that are able to sustain annual budgets over $5 million.

11. The Foundation Center, “Top 50 Recipients of Foundation Grants for Arts and Culture, circa 2008”(New York: Foundation Center, 2010), http://foundationcenter.org/findfunders/statistics/pdf/04_fund_sub/2008/50_recp_sub/r_sub_a_08.pdf.

12. The Foundation Center, “Top 50 Recipients of Foundation Grants for Arts and Culture, circa 2009”(New York: Foundation Center, 2011),http://foundationcenter.org/findfunders/statistics/pdf/04_fund_sub/2009/50_recp_sub/r_sub_a_09.pdf.

13. Helicon Collaborative, Arts Funding in California: Where Do We Stand? (Mill Valley, CA.: HeliconCollaborative, 2010), http://www.heliconcollab.net/files/Arts%20Funding%20in%20California-Where%20Do%20We%20Stand-November%202010.pdf.

2271G 9/22/11 9:38 AM Page 34

35

Fusing Arts, Culture and Social Change

14. The Foundation Center, “Grants Classification: How the Foundation Center Indexes Grants,” 2011,http://foundationcenter.org/gainknowledge/grantsclass/how.html. The Foundation Center uses a two-tiered grants classification system in which up to five beneficiary population groups can be selectedas beneficiaries of the grant. If you want to learn more about your own foundation’s data and yourinstitution is part of the Foundation Center database, email research@ncrp.org.

15. National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy, custom analysis from Foundation Center data sets,2011.

16. Kevin Williams and David Keen, 2008 Survey of Public Participation in the Arts (Washington, D.C. :National Endowment for the Arts, November 2009), http://www.nea.gov/research/2008-SPPA.pdf.

17. Karen R. Humes, Nicholas A. Jones, and Roberto R. Ramirez, Overview of Race and Hispanic Origin:2010, 2010 Census Briefs (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011),http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-02.pdf.

18. William A. Kandel, “U.S. Foreign Born Population: Trends and Selected Characteristics,” (Washington,D.C.: Congressional Research Service, January 2011), http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41592.pdf.

19. Humes, et al. 2011, op cit.20. 1stACT Silicon Valley, 2009. Data generated from 1stACT’s exhaustive, proprietary cultural organiza-

tion database capturing 659 active arts, culture and humanities organizations operating in the JointVenture defined region Silicon Valley region as of December 2008.

21. Carmen DeNavas-Walt, Bernadette D. Proctor, and Jessica C. Smith, U.S. Census Bureau, CurrentPopulation Reports, P60-238, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States:2009 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2010), http://www.census.gov/prod/2010pubs/p60-238.pdf, See also Joseph E. Stiglitz, “Of the 1%, By the 1%, For the 1%,” Vanity Fair,May 2011, http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2011/05/top-one-percent-201105. The richest400 households possess more wealth than the lowest 50 percent of households. Between 1980 and2005, more than 80 percent of the total increase in Americans’ income went to the top 1 percent ofhouseholds.

22. Carmen DeNavas-Walt, et al. 2010, op cit..23. Carmen DeNavas-Walt, et al. 2010, op cit., and Vanessa R. Wight, Michelle Chau, and Yumiko

Aratani, Who Are America’s Poor Children? The Official Story (New York, N.Y.: National Center forChildren in Poverty, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, 2010),http://www.nccp.org/publications/pdf/text_912.pdf.

24. Urban Institute, National Center for Charitable Statistics, op cit. 25. Thom File and Sarah Crissey, Voting and Registration in the Election of November 2008 (Washington,

D.C.: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010), http://www.census.gov/prod/2010pubs/p20-562.pdf.26. Thom File and Sarah Crissey, Voting and Registration in the Election of November 2008, 2010, op cit.27. Jennifer Cheeseman Day and Eric C. Newburger, The Big Payoff: Educational Attainment and

Synthetic Estimates of Work-Life Earnings (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002),http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/p23-210.pdf.

28. William Bowen, Matthew Chingos and Michael McPherson, Crossing the Finish Line (Princeton, N.J.:Princeton University Press, 2009).

29. Bowen et al. In a related, and equally alarming pattern, high school dropout rates among AfricanAmericans have remained relatively constant over the past 20 years but one reason for this pattern isthat incarceration rates for African American teenagers has doubled in that time. See Bruce Westernand Becky Pettit, “Beyond Crime and Punishment: Prisons and Inequality,” Contexts (Fall 2002), p.37-43, http://www.brynmawr.edu/socialwork/GSSW/schram/westernpettit.pdf.

2271G 9/22/11 9:38 AM Page 35

36

NATIONAL COMMITTEE FOR RESPONSIVE PHILANTHROPY

30. Laura Horn, Placing College Graduation Rates in Context (Washington, D.C.: National Center forEducational Statistics, October 2006).

31. Howard Gardner, Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences (New York: Basic Books,1993); Shirley Brice Heath, Ways With Words: Language, Life and Work in Classrooms (U.K.:Cambridge University Press, 1983); and others.

32. Nick Rabkin and E.C. Hedberg, Arts Education in America: What declines in mean for arts participa-tion (Washington, D.C.: National Endowment for the Arts, 2011); and Jonathan Kozol, “Confrontingthe Inequality Juggernaut,” Living in Dialogue interview with Anthony Cody, Education Week, July18, 2011, http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/living-in-dialogue/2011/07/time_to_get_off_our_knees_why.html.

33. Alliance of California Traditional Arts, “Weaving Traditional Arts Into the Fabric of CommunityHealth,” unpublished research report, 2011.

34. National Endowment for the Arts, Artists in the Workforce 1990-2005 (Washington, D.C.: NationalEndowment for the Arts, 2008), http://www.nea.gov/research/ArtistsInWorkforce.pdf.

35. Maria-Rosario Jackson, Florence Kabwasa-Green, Daniel Swenson, Joaquin Herranz, Jr., KadijaFerryman, Caron Atlas, Eric Waller, Carole Rosenstein, Investing in Creativity (Washington, D.C.:Urban Institute, 2003).

36. Leveraging Investments in Creativity, Artists and the Economic Recession: A Summary of Findings -May, 2010 (New York: Leveraging Investments in Creativity, 2010), http://www.lincnet.net/sites/all/files/10_1006_LINC%20recession_report_sp.pdf. The real median household income in 2009 was$49,777. See Carmen DeNavas-Walt, et al. 2010, op cit.

37. Neil O. Alper and Gregory H. Wassall, “More Than Once in a Blue Moon: Multiple Jobholding byAmerican Artists,” National Endowment for the Arts Research Division Report #40 (Santa Ana, Calif.:Seven Locks Press, 2000).

38. Ibid.39. Leveraging Investments in Creativity, Health Insurance for Artists: Before and After the Patient

Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (New York: Leveraging Investments in Creativity, 2011),http://www.lincnet.net/sites/all/files/10_1006_LINC_health_report_pages.pdf.

40. Jackson et al, op cit. Also New York Foundation for the Arts, “NYFA Source, 2011,”http://www.nyfa.org/source/content/search/search.aspx?SA=1.

41. Jackson et al, op cit.42. Tanya E. Coke, Scott Nielsen, Henry A.J. Ramos, Sherry Seward and Bradford K. Smith, Social Justice

Grantmaking II: An Update on U.S. Foundation Trends, ed. Steven Lawrence (New York: FoundationCenter, 2009) and The Foundation Center, Key Facts on Social Justice Grantmaking (New York:Foundation Center, 2011),http://foundationcenter.org/gainknowledge/research/pdf/keyfacts_social_2011.pdf.

43. An informal survey of arts funders commissioned by Grantmakers in the Arts in 2010 revealed that, inthe face of the recession and increasingly urgent social demands, some funders - especially commu-nity foundations and corporate funders - are finding it increasingly difficult to make the case for “artsfor art’s sake.” There seems to be a growing trend toward joining the arts with other causes, includingeducation, health, homelessness and community development. See Holly Sidford and Marcy HinandCady, “Arts Funders and the Recession: A Year Later,” GIA Reader (Fall 2010),http://www.giarts.org/article/arts-funders-and-recession-year-later.

44. Pam Korza and Barbara Schaffer Bacon, Trend or Tipping Point: Arts & Social Change Grantmaking(Washington, D.C. and New York: October 2010), http://impact.animatingdemocracy.org/arts-social-change-grantmaking-report-2010.

45. Ariel Dorfman in panel discussion at Ford Forum, May 2011.46. Ron Chew, Community-Based Arts Organizations: A New Center of Gravity (Washington, D.C.:

Animating Democracy, Americans for the Arts, 2009). http://www.artsusa.org/animatingdemocracy/pdf/reading_room/New_Center_of_Gravity.pdf.

2271G 9/22/11 9:38 AM Page 36

37

Fusing Arts, Culture and Social Change

47. See Ann Markusen and Anne Gadwa, Creative Placemaking, (Washington, D.C.: NationalEndowment for the Arts, 2010) and Anne Markusen and David King, Artistic Dividend: The Arts’Hidden Contributions to Regional Development (Minneapolis, Minn.: University of Minnesota, 2001);Jeremy Nowak, Creativity and Neighborhood Development (Philadelphia, Baltimore and Washington,D.C.: The Redevelopment Fund, 2007); Maria-Rosario Jackson and Joaquin Herranz, Culture Countsin Communities: A Framework for Measurement (Washington, D.C.: Urban institute, 2002), Maria-Rosario Jackson, Florence Kibwasa-Green, and Joaquin Herranz, Cultural Vitality in Communities:Interpretation and Indicators (Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute, 2006); Alaka Wali, The InformalArts: Finding Cohesion, Capacity and Other Cultural Benefits in Unexpected Places (Chicago, Ill.:Columbia College Chicago, 2002).

48. Mark Stern, “Irrational” Organizations: Culture and Community Change,[PowerPoint Presentation](Philadelphia, Pa.: Social Impact of the Arts Project, University of Pennsylvania, 2004),http://www.sp2.upenn.edu/SIAP/Summaryjun04.ppt.

59. Urban Institute, National Center for Charitable Statistics Core File [2009], 2011,http://nccsdataweb.urban.org.

50. Urban Institute, National Center for Charitable Statistics Core File [2009], 2011,http://nccsdataweb.urban.org.

51. The data used for this report was provided in August 2011 by the Cultural Data Project (“CDP”), acollaborative project of the Greater Philadelphia Cultural Alliance, The Greater Pittsburg Arts Council,Pennsylvania Council on the Arts, The Pew Charitable Trusts, The William Penn Foundation and TheHeinz Endowment, created to strengthen arts and culture by documenting and disseminating infor-mation on the arts and culture sector. Any interpretation of this data is the view of HeliconCollaborative and NCRP and does not reflect the views of the Cultural Data Project. For more infor-mation on the Cultural Data Project, visit www.culturaldata.org.

52. Urban Institute, National Center for Charitable Statistics Core File [2009], 2011,http://nccsdataweb.urban.org. 74 percent have budgets under $250,000.

53. Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University, The 2010 Study of High Net Worth Philanthropy: IssuesDriving Charitable Activities among Affluent Households (Indianapolis, Ind.: Center on Philanthropyat Indiana University, Bank of America Philanthropic Management, 2010).

54. Francie Ostrower, Why the Wealthy Give: The Culture of Elite Philanthropy (Princeton, N.J.: PrincetonUniversity Press, 1997).

55. Angela Han, “Public Funding for the Arts: 2010 Update,” GIA Reader, Vol 21, No 3 (Fall 2010),http://www.giarts.org/article/public-funding-arts-2010-update.

56. Mark H. Moore and Gaylen Williams Moore, Creating Public Value Through State Arts Agencies(Minneapolis, Minn.: Arts Midwest, 2005), http://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/audi-ence-development-for-the-arts/state-arts-policy/Documents/Creating-Public-Value-Through-State-Arts-Agencies.pdf.

57. Kary Schulman, email message to author, 2 May 2011. Schulman is director of San Francisco Grantsfor the Arts.

58. Cultural Data Project, op cit.59. John R. Killacky, “Regrets of a Former Arts Funder,” Blue Avocado, June 23, 2011, http://blueavoca-

do.org/node/664.

2271G 9/22/11 9:38 AM Page 37

38

NATIONAL COMMITTEE FOR RESPONSIVE PHILANTHROPY

Appendix A: Making Change Happen

In their book Switch: How to Change Things When Change Is Hard, Chip Heath and DanHeath offer a practical guide to making change happen. Among other useful ideas, they makethe important point that what looks like resistance is often a lack of clarity about how to moveforward. Boards, presidents and staff members of foundations may want to pursue greater fair-ness in their philanthropic work but simply do not know how to do so.

The Heaths suggest that people seeking change must do three things: Find the Feeling, Followthe Bright Spots and Shape the Path. This useful framework can be adapted for the purposes ofmoving toward greater equity in cultural philanthropy. Here, we offer some preliminarythoughts:

Find the Feeling: Create a sense of purposeful urgency1. Gather information and discuss the social, educational, economic and political inequalities

in the communities of your grantmaking focus.2. Candidly examine the demographic profile and relative need of the people who are bene-

fiting from your current grants.3. Identify one or more areas of focus and communities with which to work.4. Meet people from these communities, make site visits, invite presentations at board meet-

ings.5. Add advisors, panelists, staff and board members who represent or are knowledgeable

about these communities. 6. Take cultural literacy/cultural competency training.

Follow the Bright Spots: Base your strategy on solid information1. Look at the evidence, the written record, the research and standards of practice.2. Seek out positive examples – both of on-the-ground work and other funders' programs.3. Increase opportunities for knowledge-sharing and critical discourse among funders, among

practitioners and between practitioners and funders.4. Think strategically and act in concert with others to build a more people-centered, commu-

nity-relevant cultural sector.5. Create a vision and define what “success” looks like for your foundation.6. Develop a theory of change.7. Identify and commit to specific steps toward more equitable distribution of grants.8. Realize this is a long-term process that requires both sustained, multi-year commitment and

multiple kinds of philanthropic interventions.

Shape the Path: Shrink the change to a manageable size; try something, examine the results,learn and adapt; disseminate learning1. Craft more flexible guidelines. 2. Create and implement diversity policies.3. Acknowledge that mistakes will be made.4. Learn from the mistakes, do not run from them.5. Disseminate results and learning (both the positive and the not-so-positive).6. Celebrate the successes and build on them.

2271G 9/22/11 9:38 AM Page 38

NCRP STAFF

Meredith Brodbeck COMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATE

Samantha Davis FIELD ASSISTANT

Sean Dobson FIELD DIRECTOR

Aaron Dorfman EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

Kevin Faria DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR

Niki Jagpal RESEARCH & POLICY DIRECTOR

Kevin Laskowski RESEARCH & POLICY ASSOCIATE

Anna Kristina (“Yna”) C. Moore COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR

Lisa Ranghelli DIRECTOR, GRANTMAKING FOR COMMUNITY IMPACT PROJECT

Christine Reeves FIELD ASSOCIATE

Beverley Samuda-Wylder SENIOR ADMINISTRATIVE ASSOCIATE

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEEDiane Feeney (CHAIR) FRENCH AMERICAN CHARITABLE TRUST

Dave Beckwith (VICE CHAIR) NEEDMOR FUND

Cynthia Guyer (SECRETARY) INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT

Robert Edgar (TREASURER) COMMON CAUSE

Sherece Y. West (AT-LARGE) WINTHROP ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION

DIRECTORSPablo Eisenberg PUBLIC POLICY INSTITUTE, GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY

Marjorie Fine INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT

Ana Garcia-Ashley GAMALIEL FOUNDATION

Judy Hatcher ENVIRONMENTAL SUPPORT CENTER

Trista Harris HEADWATERS FOUNDATOIN FOR JUSTICE

Priscilla Hung COMMUNITY PARTNERS

Gara LaMarche ROBERT F. WAGNER SCHOOL OF PUBLIC SERVICE, NEW YORK UNIVERSITY

Joy Persall BUSH FOUNDATION

Ai-jen Poo NATIONAL DOMESTIC WORKERS ALLIANCE

Cynthia Renfro MARGUERITE CASEY FOUNDATION

Russell Roybal NATIONAL GAY AND LESBIAN TASK FORCE

Gary Snyder NONPROFIT IMPERATIVE

PAST BOARD CHAIRSPaul Castro JEWISH FAMILY SERVICE OF LOS ANGELES

John Echohawk NATIVE AMERICAN RIGHTS FUND

Pablo Eisenberg PUBLIC POLICY INSTITUTE, GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY

David R. Jones COMMUNITY SERVICE SOCIETY OF NEW YORK

Terry Odendahl GLOBAL GREENGRANTS FUND

Organization affiliation for identification purposes only.

2271G 9/22/11 9:38 AM Page 39

“With this report, NCRP reminds us all that arts and culture can no longer be understood to bethe province of society's elites, but rather, that arts are expressions of the very essence of whatmakes a community whole, what makes it vibrant. Building socially just and sustainable commu-nities requires funders to pay as much attention to the artistic and cultural fabric of our places aswe do to economic opportunity and environmental health. It urges us to break away from ourtraditional notion of arts and culture as happening merely in stately opera houses, concert hallsand museums, but instead, as existing and thriving throughout our communities.”

—Phillip Henderson, President, Surdna Foundation

"This is great data and even better analysis for all who wonder about the contributions of artsand culture to our democracy. It's a compelling call to cultural funders to review and reconsidertheir policies and practices in order to keep pace with the growing number of artists and cul-tural traditions from diverse cultural backgrounds that are animating our civil society today."

—Peter Pennekamp, Executive Director, Humboldt Area Foundation

“In this useful and thought-provoking NCRP report, Holly Sidford prompts funders to use ourimaginations, take more risks and advance the arts in ways that contribute to our democracy.She argues that 'equity' and 'quality' need not be at odds in our valuation of the arts, and thatbroad access should be a core principle of all arts grantmaking. She asks us to question ourassumptions about the ways in which our own grantmaking strategies might either inadvertent-ly hinder or strategically advance the arts.”

—Claire Peeps, Executive Director, Durfee Foundation

A Philanthropy at Its Best® Report

FUSING ARTS, CULTURE AND SOCIAL CHANGEHigh Impact Strategies for Philanthropy© October 2011, National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy

Art and culture are fundamental elements of a society, essential means by which people shape their identity,explain their experiences and imagine the future. In the United States, institutional philanthropy is a keycontributor to arts and cultural institutions and to artists; it is an important stimulus to progress in this field.Each year, foundations award about $2.3 billion to the arts, but the distribution of these funds does not reflectthe country's evolving cultural landscape and changing demographics. Current arts grantmaking disregardslarge segments of cultural practice, and consequently, large segments of our society.

Fusing Arts, Culture and Social Change outlines compelling demographic, aesthetic and economic reasons forfoundations to rethink their grantmaking practices to stay current with changes in the cultural sector and tocontinue to be relevant to the evolving needs of our communities. Regardless of its history or primaryphilanthropic focus, every foundation investing in the arts can make fairness and equity core principles of itsgrantmaking. It can do so by intentionally prioritizing underserved communities in its philanthropy and byinvesting substantially in community organizing and civic engagement work in the arts and culture sector. Bydoing so, arts funders – individually and collectively – can make meaningful contributions toward a moreinclusive and dynamic cultural sector, and a fairer, more democratic world.

This is the third in a series of reports from the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP) thatinvites grantmakers focused on specific issues to reconsider their funding strategies to generate the greatestimpact. A report for education grantmakers was published in October 2010 and for health funders in April2011. A fourth report for environment and climate funders will be published in early 2012.

For information or copies of this report, or to join NCRP, please contact us at:1331 H Street NW, Suite 200 • Washington D.C. 20005

Phone 202.387.9177 • Fax 202.332.5084 • E-mail: info@ncrp.org • Web: www.ncrp.org

2271G 9/26/11 9:30 AM Page 40