I had to wonder if people were intentionally misreading the post I made about the Arts Council of England requiring applications for funding. My declaration that “Once again, Europe proves their arts policy is superior to that of the U.S.!” was meant to be read a little tongue in cheek lampooning the constant refrain that the arts policy and audiences in Europe are better than in the U.S. And even if that tone didn’t come across, I would have thought that when I wrote sentence or two later that the reality was that the policy is exclusionary and then spend 500 or so words talking about how it will be improved, it would be clear that I wasn’t seriously supporting the old way of doing things.
But I wasn’t really put off by the comments on the entry or by Leonard Jacobs post criticizing this view on The Clyde Fitch Report. In my mind, I was guilty of the age old failing – If you have to explain the joke, you didn’t deliver it correctly. Besides, I figured my blog would get some traffic from the Clyde Fitch Report post.
But then I got to thinking about it. No arts organization ever forms for the purpose of filling out grant applications. Yes, you know when you form your non-profit, it is something of a necessity for doing business. It isn’t a surprise that filling them out does indeed divert energy from the core purpose of the organization. So yes, on second thought, I do think it is pretty much the duty of every non-profit organization to gain funding with the least effort possible so they can get on with their core purpose. It isn’t just me saying this. The biggest measure of non-profit effectiveness is the ratio of how much raised goes toward programs vs how much goes toward overhead and expenses. This is the measure Charity Navigator used to rate my local United Way dead last among local non-profits.
Charity Navigator admits their evaluation doesn’t look at the quality of programs non-profits offer, a fact those at the bottom of the list are quick to cite when they decry the legitimacy of the rankings. But this is a measure that is gaining more and more traction, especially among politicians who are questioning the salaries of those few non-profit executives who actually make enough worth noting.
No surprise politics plays a big part in who gets government funding and who doesn’t. In that context it is get tougher to say that the old policy for funding by the Arts Council of England is really worse than that of the NEA. There are categories of people who were once eligible for funding by the NEA who no longer are due to changes in laws and policies made in reaction to political pressure. We have had mayors of New York City who have unilaterally declared that arts organizations will not receive funding because of program content. Are situations where individuals have the power to rescind funding awarded by a small group of people based on an application any more egalitarian than a situation where a small group of people are empowered to decide who will receive funding based on their own judgments (as well informed as they may be by the vastly superior arts environment which exists in Europe)?
Actually, on the face of it, I would say yes since the criteria being used by the NEA to award grants are clear from the outset, regardless of the pressures exerted to shape those criteria. As I mentioned in my original post, the process and criteria by which the Arts Council decided which organizations to fund and how an organization might even enter the council’s consideration was murky at best. Politics are going to tinge any decision making process where judgments are present. Lets not pretend though that the lengthy application process, be it an electronic or paper submission process, is the best and only way for governments to disburse funds.
When my consortium met last week, one of the aspirations we had for our fledgling merger was right in line with the regional partner initiatives the Arts Council of England hopes to implement. We are looking to become organized enough to propose becoming a partner organization to the state arts foundation and receive annual funding for our activities outside of the normal granting process. To my mind 10-15 performing arts entities coming together to work in partnership is an approach worth funding in an alternative manner. I believe it would be counterproductive to require each of us to submit a separate applications because it would perpetuate the idea that we needed to compete as individuals for funding rather than to collaborate.
Let’s be honest, there is a lot of self-interest when non-profits are seeking funding. As Leonard Jacobs notes, many funders have restrictive criteria about what they will fund based on interests, geography and shifting priorities. Our interests in the criteria for government funding is based immediately on whether we and perhaps our close partners qualify. A desire for an egalitarian arts policy that benefits everyone else is more philosophically abstract, based generally on creating an environment in which our potential audience base comes to appreciate the arts. If our perceived rivals gain significantly more largesse, our attitudes can become less charitable.
I am all for any system that encourages a shift toward group interest and responsibility–especially if the group shares in the paperwork rather than just me. But more importantly if you haven’t guessed, I would welcome a shift away from the damn paperwork. Leonard Jacobs says to stop whining about the paperwork and do some work for it. Well, it is the art that is the work you are doing for the grant, not the paperwork. Nobody is interested in funding paperwork. Though reviewing written applications may be efficient in terms of cost, the paperwork is really about the least effective way to measure the worth of a project. It is just a measure of good writing ability, which granted is an art itself and deserving of support. But that is just the genteel way of saying that someone knows how to bullshit well and use all the correct phrases and keywords. Many of the online application forms don’t let you submit them if your costs exceed your income and therefore require that you lie to complete them even if the truth is that you spent $50 more than you made. The whole process is dishonest before anyone even looks at the application.
The arts by their very nature are meant to be seen and experienced. Yes, sending people out to visit grantees is expensive, but perhaps it would be done if there was better funding. Yes, the visiting team might make subjective judgments about the worthiness of your organization, but they are doing that already when they read your grant application.
Colleges and universities are accredited by regional bodies who send people to evaluate them on a regular basis to bring them into compliance with current standards. Now I will readily admit that compliance translates into paperwork. I will also concede that the schools probably pay quite a lot to be part of this process. And even though they aren’t part of the government, members of Congress have been criticizing the accrediting bodies. So I won’t even pretend this idea would satisfy the NEA’s biggest critics.
But if arts groups were organized under regional bodies, then the cost could be borne by many just as it is with the schools. The experience of those participating as visiting evaluators would be much more valuable than sitting on a grant review committee. Instead of learning what committees were looking for in a grant application, the committee member could actually learn about the best practices by groups in their region and share that information with their home organization. Not to mention they would be sharing information and developing deeper relationships with other arts professionals beyond what can be accomplished at conferences.
Granted so much of this is pie in the sky idealism currently, but that doesn’t mean we have to complacently accept the current way of doing things. Really, it may not be that the written application is a bad format, but rather the criteria it looks to evaluate is flawed. The visitation process I am suggesting would change the evaluation criteria out of necessity. But as an alternative, as our ability to record and share our accomplishments on media improves, it can be just as valid a tool in shifting what criteria is emphasized too.
Though I really think that that an extensive program of visits by well trained teams would go an incredibly long way in improving arts leadership and management. While I think the sites that hosts the visits might receive some excellent guidance, were I designing the program, my focus would be on cultivating the abilities of the visiting team over telling the host what they are doing wrong.
