Government Relations

Talk About Your Org Before Someone Else Does

by

Last week Americans for the Arts held a Private Sector salon on ARTSblog where they discussed where the interests of the arts and business intersected. Much of the discussion was very interesting, but one entry by Margy Waller stuck with me for a few days. Part of it was the timeliness of her subject. She cited the recent controversy at the National Portrait Gallery (NPG) about a video that included ants crawling on a crucifix. She quoted a commenter on the NPR story about the controversy calling art the leisure pursuit of the elite.

It immediately made me wonder if the commenter was aware that admission at the NPG, like most of the Smithsonian museums, is free and that the gallery contains very accessible works of historical significance from portraits of Presidents, First Ladies, Founding Fathers and Cornwallis’ surrender to Washington at the end of the Revolutionary War to Stephen Colbert. I am not sure what more someone needs to feel that museum has something to offer them rather than deciding it is only in the purview of others. Even with the exposure provided by people like Stephen Colbert and millions of people wandering through the NPG for free every year, people are unaware of the experience the museum offers. The museums really only get national attention when there is controversy and at that point, no one is interviewing the person talking about the benefits of the arts or the thousands of other works hanging in the galleries.

This weekend when the Honolulu Symphony decided to ask a judge to allow them to dissolve rather than undergo Chapter 11 reorganization, (a request which as of this writing, the judge has granted), the 140+ comments people made on the initial newspaper article revealed just how uninformed and unaware about the symphony’s operations people were. I am not referring to people making spiteful comments about how elitist classical music is who weren’t making any effort to learn. There were plenty of them. But there were others conducting conversations in which people were learning about the business aspects of the symphony for the first time.

A commenter with the handle 1SWBP wrote:

“Shamonu–mahalo for the explanation. That makes more sense now. I appreciate your taking the time. My empathy now runs much more deeper and the union stuff makes perfect sense. I guess I never realized how ‘large’ our symphony was. I do regret not being able to get out more and enjoy them more often.”

What made Margy Waller’s post most inspiring however was a video of Cincinnati mayor Mark Mallory talking about the economic benefits the arts have brought to his city in his State of the City address last year. It reinforces the idea that you have to talk about what you bring to the table, and talk about it, talk about it some more and then get others to talk about it when people get sick of hearing you. A little depressing though that there are only 113 views so pass it on if you like it.

Political Philanthropy

by

Via the ever interesting Non Profit Law Blog and apropos to the portion of Barry Hessenius’ interview with Fractured Atlas’ Adam Huttler I recently focused on, is a piece by Ezra Klein in the Washington Post about politicizing your giving to non-profits.

In a piece titled “Giving is personal. Make it political,” Klein paraphrases Shakespeare, “I come not to praise charity. I come to politicize it. Or at least make it more aware of the political world around it.” He essentially takes the “give a man to fish…teach a man to fish” approach by suggesting while giving to a organization focused on helping the community assists them in their immediate purpose, giving to a non-profit that does policy advocacy helps change the operating environment for all the non-profits pursuing that goal.

He ends the piece saying,

“The point of this isn’t to polarize philanthropy or to warn anyone away from traditional charities. There’s room – and need – for an array of approaches. But at the end of the day, the government is the central player in many of these spheres, with the scale and power to make changes that other actors simply can’t contemplate. Charities that work to make the government’s policies better have a unique ability to take small investments and turn them into tremendous outcomes. If you’re looking for bang for your philanthropic buck, they’re the place to start.”

I have to admit a fair bit of skepticism when I read this. Klein writes for a paper in a town where lobbying makes the world go round so his view about effective use of money is necessarily tainted by that.

On the other hand, he writes for a paper in a town where lobbying makes things happen so he has first hand expertise on the subject.

And as I noted as I began this post, there is a lot of discussion these days that the arts need to assert themselves in the political arena. It is a sentiment being repeated so often of late that I wonder if this has become the equivalent of the stereotyped artist who doesn’t want to be bothered with the dreary details of handling the business side of their career and gets cheated. Politics can be a dirty, intimidating business that most right minded folks don’t want to get involved with. You need only read a little further in Mark Antony’s speech where he keeps referring to Brutus and those who stabbed Caesar as honorable men to recognize this is a situation which has endured in politics for a very long time.

Many lobbyists tend to be a little unsavory too. It is enough to make you wonder if the lesser evil might be to give to a local charity who may have high overhead costs versus paying large amounts to a lobbyist and getting little in return. Is it better to be cheated locally? Granted, the arts have a number of national and regional groups who perform various advocacy functions and the arts world is small enough that we can interact with the leadership and gauge their trustworthiness.

But would you encourage your supporters to donate to them rather than to you? Would you try to convince them to support the national group so that things would be better for your organization five or ten years down the road? People give to people, not organizations so your local supporters would likely prefer to give to you. Do you then pass some of their support on to an advocacy group? Even if their gifts are not designated to a particular use, most donors likely give because they believe the donation will have a direct benefit in their community. Do you tell them your plan is to create a better environment for all the arts in your state/city/county through political activity of some sort when you solicit their donation?

Perhaps these are conversations people will start to have with those that provide support. Some may have a sophisticated understanding of the process already and can provide assistance. A minimal benefit of such effort may serve to raise the profile of many advocacy groups in the public’s mind in the process shifting them from a logo in the “We Thank Our Supporters” section to the guys fighting for policy decisions. Granted, it might be difficult to explain why the local arts organization wants to give funds to the regional organization which gives the local guys funds for the summer concert series. It can be tough to understand why the regional organization can’t use NEA grants dedicated to free public programming for advocacy efforts.

Little More About Politics and Art

by

I finally got around to reading an interview I bookmarked where Barry Hessenius conducted with Adam Huttler, Executive Director of Fractured Atlas. There was a lot of interesting things said, but I thought I would focus in on some sections related to some recent posts I made.

At one point Huttler touches on the topic I discussed yesterday. The NEA doesn’t get much funding and what it does get is subject to contentious scrutiny. Huttler points out however there are other areas in which people can advocate which can greatly impact the arts.

“Meanwhile, policymakers – on both a local and national level – have countless other levers for impacting cultural vitality. Zoning laws can determine whether urban cultural enclaves remain dynamic hubs of creativity or gentrify into sterile swaths of Starbucks and bank branches. Immigration rules can facilitate or inhibit international cultural exchange…We need to take a more holistic view in which the arts play a role in projects funded by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Transportation, or the Department of Homeland Security.”

Hessenius points out that the NEA is not the only source of funding for the arts and in addition to those departments Huttler mentioned, there is also the National Endowment for the Humanities and the Smithsonian. The conversation moves toward the idea that the arts need to exercise their political clout a lot more if they expect better results. There is a discussion of 501 (c) (4)s and political action committees as a tool and some of the complications relative to those structures.

As conversation in this area continues, Hessnius talks about an option I had mentioned as a possible consequence of people turning their back on NEA funding and perhaps 501 c 3 status–performance to benefit political ends. I actually didn’t know that it was permitted under current status as apparently many don’t.

“Some have argued (me included) that the nonprofit arts sector (by taking advantage of its ability to do performance benefits to fund its political activities) ought to be one of the most powerful special interest groups on the playing field – with real political clout that might not only help us to obtain more funding, but pass diverse legislation on all the levels as you suggest – from tax laws to zoning regulations. Yet we do not.”

Huttler notes that laws governing political lobbying and activity make things a little more involved than that, but still an under utilized option that Fractured Atlas will be exploring.

Where Your Duty As A Non-Profit Lies

by

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.