h/t Artsjournal.com which posted a story about the Greater Pittsburgh Arts Council’s (GPAC) heartfelt admission that it hadn’t been an effective administrator of arts programs.

CEO Patrick Fisher — while acknowledging that his group has done much good over the years — writes that “regardless of intentions, the Arts Council has caused harm by being inconsistent, unresponsive, or culturally inept.”

[…]

Fisher said it has sometimes been through poor planning and management of initiatives like the Disabled Artists Creative Cohort and the Black Arts Action Committee. GPAC “over-promised and under-delivered” on these underfunded attempts to increase opportunities for disabled and Black artists and left behind disappointed constituencies, he said.

Other programs that initially served a purpose failed to change as needed. One, Fisher said, was Art on the Walls, which at first addressed a very real lack of exhibition opportunities for emerging and mid-career artists. But it also kept diverting resources from more urgent projects even after other opportunities for such artists emerged, he said.

Likewise, certain grant programs for local artists ran out of money, leaving artists in the lurch.

Last April I wrote about the group, Crappy Funding Practices, which has been calling attention to onerous requirements and problematic expectations that funding entities have for grantees. The ultimate goal has been nudge funders to engage in the sort of self-examination that GPAC has undertaken.

As far as I recall, GPAC hasn’t been a subject of a post by Crappy Funding Practices, but some of those mentioned by the group have revised their practices when it has been called to their attention. It is to their credit that the CEO and members of the arts council have engaged in a listening tour, solicited feedback, and made changing some of these practices part of their next strategic plan.