Local Public Funding for Arts and Cultural Organizations: A comparative analysis of Chicago and peer regions,

Transcription

1 Local Public Funding for Arts and Cultural Organizations: A comparative analysis of Chicago and peer regions, Research commissioned by Arts Alliance Illinois October 2013 Jennifer L. Novak-Leonard & Patience E. Baach 1155 E. 60 th Street, Suite 285 Chicago, IL T: F:

2 Highlights of findings In 2012, Chicago awarded competitive grants to approximately 43% of the arts and cultural organizations in the city, reaching the second largest portion of cultural nonprofits of the twelve cities or regions examined in this study (Figure 10). Chicago has consistently awarded the most competitive grants among the peer regions averaging 492 grants per year - over the past decade, and is home to the greatest number of art and cultural nonprofit organizations (estimated 996 organizations) among the twelve cities or regions examined in this report. Despite the wide reach of Chicago s public grants, average Chicago grant sizes are small compared with peer regions. In 2012, Chicago s average competitive grant size was $2,448 (Figure 8). The average general operating support grant was $2,004, and project support grant was $785 (Figure 15 & 16). In contrast to the high levels of total competitive grant dollars awarded to arts and cultural organizations by San Francisco s grantmaking entities ($12.8 million) and in Cuyahoga County (Cleveland) ($15.8 million), Chicago only awarded $1.1 million in 2012 (Figure 3). In 2012, Chicago awarded $0.41 per capita in competitive grants; only Boston ($0.21) and Phoenix ($0.18) spent less per capita in 2012 (Figure 6). In 2012, Chicago awarded $0.17 per capita in general operating grants and $0.05 per capita in project support (Figure 14). Four of the twelve regions provide city budget line-items for arts and cultural organizations (Figure 2), which serve as important sources of general operating funds. In 2012, Baltimore, Philadelphia, San Diego and San Francisco awarded line-item budgets for administrative, maintenance and general operating costs for flagship cultural institutions. Unlike these cities, Chicago does not offer any line-item budget dollars. 2

3 Table of Contents HIGHLIGHTS OF FINDINGS... 2 OVERVIEW... 5 Structure of the Report... 7 SECTION I: COMPETITIVE GRANTS: OVERVIEW... 8 Total Competitive Grant Dollars Awarded... 8 Per Capita Average Competitive Award Amount Number & Reach of Competitive Grants Awarded Summary of Competitive Grants: Overview SECTION II: COMPETITIVE GRANTS: GENERAL OPERATING & PROJECT BASED Total Dollars Awarded, by Grant Type Per Capita, by Grant Type Average General Operating or Project Award Amount Reach, by Grant Type Summary of Competitive Grants: General Operating & Project Based SECTION III: GENERAL OPERATING SUPPORT: COMPETITIVE & NON-COMPETITIVE SUPPORT Total General Operating Dollars Per Capita Spending on General Operating Support Summary of General Operating: Competitive & Non-Competitive Support REFERENCE LIST TECHNICAL APPENDICES SUMMARY TABLE APPENDIX I: CITY-LEVEL DATA COLLECTION APPENDIX II. INFORMATION ABOUT GRANT MAKING AGENCIES APPENDIX III. LINE-ITEM BUDGET RESEARCH APPENDIX IV: ARTS- AND CULTURE-RELATED ORGANIZATION COUNT APPENDIX V: ZIP CODE REFERENCES APPENDIX VI: POPULATION ESTIMATES AND COUNTS Highlights of findings3

4 Table of Figures Figure 1: NonProfit Arts & Cultural Organizations per 10,000 Residents in Select Peer Regions (2012)... 6 Figure 2: Mechanisms for Direct Public Funding... 7 Figure 3: Total Competitive Grant Dollars Awarded (All Cities), Figure 4: Total Competitive Grant Dollars Awarded (Cities awarding below $4 million, annually), Figure 5: Total Competitive Grant Dollars Awarded Per Capita (All Cities), Figure 6: Total Competitive Grant Dollars Awarded Per Capita (Cities awarding <$3.00), Figure 7: Average Competitive Grant Award Amount (All Cities), Figure 8: Average Competitive Grant Award Amount (Cities awarding grants of $50,000 or less, on average), Figure 9: Number of Competitive Grants Awarded, Figure 10: Number of Grants & Portion of Arts/Cultural Organizations Receiving Grants, Figure 11: Average Competitive Grant Size & Estimated Portion of Arts- and Culture-Related Organizations Receiving Grants, Figure 12: Distribution of Competitive Dollars Awarded by Grant Type, Figure 13: Distribution of Chicago s Competitive Grant Dollars, Figure 14: Per Capita Project & General Operating Support Comparison, Figure 15: Average General Operating Grant Amount, Figure 16: Average Project Grant Amount, Figure 17: Estimated Portion of Arts and Culture Organizations Receiving Competitive Funding by Grant Type, Figure 18: Average General Operating Grant Size & Estimated Portion of Arts- and Culture-Related Organizations Receiving the Grants, Figure 19: Average Project Grant Size & Estimated Portion of Arts- and Culture-Related Organizations Receiving the Grants, Figure 20: Total General Operating Support: Competitive & Non-Competitive Support (All Cities), Figure 21: Total General Operating Support: Competitive & Non-Competitive Support (Select Cities), Figure 22: Total General Operating Support Per Capita (All Cities), Figure 23: Total General Operating Support by Portion of Existing Arts & Culture Organizations Receiving General Operating Support, Highlights of findings4

5 Overview Arts and cultural organizations receive revenue from a variety of sources earned income, endowments, individual gifts and donations, and private and public funding. Public funding constitutes almost 7% of revenues for performing arts organizations and museums in the US, 1 and local public funding accounts for almost 50% of this direct public funding. This report takes stock of local-level public funding in Chicago and eleven peer regions. Debates around funding strategies for nonprofit arts and culture organizations are long-standing, specifically debates about the comparative advantages between providing general operating support or project-based support. Some argue that general operating support is the core of nonprofit funding because it allows for development, expansion and maintenance. 2 A key goal of general operating support is to bolster organizations sustainability and to strengthen and develop their capacity. Organizations themselves decide how best to utilize general operating dollars. Others propose that project support breeds opportunity to be creative, innovative and impactful. 3 An advantage of project-based grants is that a funding agency can be more responsive to organizations innovative project ideas. Project support is typically earmarked solely for the specified, time-limited projects. 4 This report examines the means by which public funding is distributed directly to nonprofit arts and cultural organizations through select city and regional grant-making entities. We review the grant-making strategies used by each entity, and the number of grants and amounts awarded to arts and cultural organizations over the past decade ( ) with a focus on recent years, following the recession. Through a comparative regional analysis of local grant-making entities, we are able to understand how and for what purposes public dollars are being awarded. In addition to providing grants to arts, cultural and other organizations, several of the entities studied own, operate and/or program various cultural facilities or provide indirect means of support for arts and culture to its region s organizations and residents. We focus here on direct local public funding to arts and cultural organizations. An examination of indirect public support and the broader funding landscape within each region is beyond the scope of this study. In addition to Chicago, we looked at eleven cities and regions in our analysis, encompassing Baltimore, Boston, Cleveland, Columbus, Denver, Houston, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Portland (OR), San Diego and San Francisco. 5 We included these cities based on their population size, their reputation as arts-friendly cities, and, pragmatically, our ability to access their data. For some cities of interest, the local funding entity was a 1 National Endowment for the Arts (2012), How the United States Funds the Arts. p. 1 2 Jagpal and Laskowski (2013) 3 In Chicago, there have been discussions about who to fund and how much, particularly concerning larger institutions (2011). The Board of the Council on Foundations discusses the benefits of general operating and project support here (2002). An argument for the expansion of general operating support can be viewed here (Jagpal and Laskowski, 2013). Additional resources surrounding the conversations can be found at the Stanford Social Innovation website and at the National Endowment for the Humanities website. 4 The Council on Foundations provides a succinct overview of the advantages and disadvantages of general operating and project support grants here. 5 A few of the cities rely on regional grant-making agencies rather than a city department. These cities are Cleveland, Columbus, Denver and Portland. From here on in our report, we will refer to these cities by the areas that the agencies service Cuyahoga County, Greater Columbus Area, Denver Metropolitan Region and Portland, Oregon Metropolitan Region, respectively. For a detailed report of the different funding agencies, please see Appendix II. Overview5

6 regional agency, which distributes grants within and surrounding the city boundaries. 6 Figure 1 maps the regions examined in this report and depicts the number of nonprofit arts and cultural organizations per 10,000 residents in each region. Figure 1: NonProfit Arts & Cultural Organizations per 10,000 Residents in Select Peer Regions (2012) 7 Portland Metro Region Cuyahoga County (Cleveland) Boston San Francisco Denver Metro Region Chicago Greater Columbus Area Philadelphia Baltimore San Diego Phoenix Houston In sum, we contacted 18 cities to request data, but not all cities were willing or able to provide participate. Many of these organizations were generous with their time and shared their data with us. We gathered data directly from the following entities online resources: Boston Cultural Council, Greater Columbus Arts Council, and Denver s Scientific & Cultural Facilities District. We are grateful for the time and support of the participating cities and would like to thank all of our contacts. 7 Please see the appendices for details on population counts, our methodology for estimating the number of arts and cultural nonprofits in each region, and on each region s grant-making entity. Overview6

7 Each of these regions has a unique history and different mechanisms for distributing public dollars to local arts and cultural organizations. All of them offer competitive grants to organizations; while the purposes of the competitive grants vary, they all have an open call for applications. In addition to competitive grants, we also discuss noncompetitive means of support, specifically non-competitive grants and city budget lineitems that serve as critical means of providing general operating support. Figure 2: Mechanisms for Direct Public Funding Structure of the Report In Section I, we look at all competitive grants awarded to nonprofit arts and cultural organizations, examining total competitive grant dollars, the number and size of grants made, and the portion of each city s or region s arts and cultural organizations receiving those grants. In Section II, we differentiate competitive grants by their designated uses. Specifically, we examine general operating support grants and project support grants. Finally, in Section III, we examine the amounts of general operating support awarded through competitive and noncompetitive means. We look at how the addition of noncompetitive support alters the picture of general operating support in some cities. Throughout the report we focus our discussion on Chicago. Overview7

8 Section I: Competitive Grants: Overview Total Competitive Grant Dollars Awarded Figure 3 shows the total amount of competitive grants dollars awarded to organizations over the last decade. Cuyahoga County (Cleveland) and San Francisco consistently awarded the greatest total dollar amounts via competitive grants over the last decade. In 2012, they awarded $15.8 and $12.8 million dollars respectively. Figure 3: Total Competitive Grant Dollars Awarded (All Cities), Figure 3 illustrates data from , however, not all agencies provided data for all years, either because the data was not available to them, or the agency was not yet in existence. Cuyahoga Arts & Culture, established in 2006, offered one small, special initiative grant ($275,000) in This grant was removed to show Cuyahoga County s complete granting program, which did not start until Additionally, we were only able to garner data from one San Francisco department for 2002, so we opted to exclude that year until we had data from all three San Francisco funding sources (in 2003). Section I: Competitive Grants: Overview8

9 Most comparison cities or regions, however, awarded below $4 million (adjusted to 2012 dollars) in each year over the past decade. Figure 4 takes a closer look at the total competitive grant dollars awarded in those cities/regions that offered below $4 million annually. Figure 4: Total Competitive Grant Dollars Awarded (Cities awarding below $4 million, annually), By contrast to the high levels awarded in San Francisco and Cuyahoga County (Figure 3), Chicago only awarded $1.1 million in 2012, one of the lowest overall amounts of competitive grant funding. Over the last decade, Chicago has consistently awarded among the lowest amounts of grant funding to arts and cultural organizations; only Baltimore, Boston and Phoenix have awarded consistently smaller total amounts. Baltimore did not offer competitive, city-funded grants in 2011 or Section I: Competitive Grants: Overview9

10 Per Capita Figures 5 and 6 illustrate per capita support provided through competitive grants in each region. Figure 5 details the cities/regions with the greatest per capita funding in San Francisco and Cuyahoga County (Cleveland) awarded the highest per capita support over the last decade, each awarding $15.48 and $12.48 per capita, respectively, in Figure 5: Total Competitive Grant Dollars Awarded Per Capita (All Cities), Section I: Competitive Grants: Overview10

11 In contrast, Chicago awarded $0.41 on a per capita basis in 2012 (Figure 6). Only Phoenix ($0.18), Boston ($0.21) and Baltimore ($0.00) awarded fewer competitive grant dollars per capita. Figure 6: Total Competitive Grant Dollars Awarded Per Capita (Cities awarding <$3.00), Section I: Competitive Grants: Overview11

12 Average Competitive Award Amount Figures 7 and 8 show the average competitive grant award amounts in each city over time. Cuyahoga County, San Diego and San Francisco consistently provided the largest grant amounts on average. Figure 7: Average Competitive Grant Award Amount (All Cities), Note: Average grant size jumped in Cuyahoga County (Cleveland) in 2010 because, while Cuyahoga Arts & Culture had only a slightly smaller pool of dollars, they did not provide any project-specific support, so the number of grants dramatically dropped, thus increasing average grant size. Section I: Competitive Grants: Overview12

13 Chicago s average competitive grant size in 2012 was $2,448, notably smaller than Chicago s average of $3,468 in 2002 (adjusted to 2012 dollars). Chicago s average grant is therefore the second lowest, after Boston ($1,997), among peer cities offering competitive grants in Figure 8: Average Competitive Grant Award Amount (Cities awarding grants of $50,000 or less, on average), Section I: Competitive Grants: Overview13

14 Number & Reach of Competitive Grants Awarded Chicago has consistently awarded the greatest number of competitive grants among the comparison cities/regions, awarding 428 grants to organizations in Figure 9: Number of Competitive Grants Awarded, Only in 2011 did San Francisco award a slightly higher number of grants than Chicago. Section I: Competitive Grants: Overview14

15 Number of Grants Es mated % of Arts and Cultural Orgs Receiving Funding Chicago s grants reach one of the highest portions (43%) of organizations among our comparison cities/regions. Figure 10 shows the number of grants awarded in each city/region in 2012 and the portion of arts and cultural organizations within the city/region that received the grants. Figure 10: Number of Grants & Portion of Arts/Cultural Organizations Receiving Grants, Number of Grants & Por on of Arts/Cultural Organiza ons Receiving Grants, % % 50% % 40% % 33% % 30% 22% 23% 27% 30% 20% 17% % 10% 50 0 Chicago San Francisco Denver Metro Region Philadelphia Houston Cuyahoga County (Cleveland) Portland Metro Region San Diego Greater Columbus Area Boston Phoenix 0% Only San Francisco reaches a greater portion of arts and cultural organizations within their region with grants (49%), but San Francisco also has fewer estimated arts and cultural nonprofits than Chicago (667 and 996, respectively). Section I: Competitive Grants: Overview15

16 Es mated % of Arts and Cultural Orgs Receiving Funding Summary of Competitive Grants: Overview Chicago provides competitive awards to a large portion of its arts and cultural organizations, at low funding levels compared to peer cities. San Francisco, Cuyahoga County (Cleveland), San Diego and the Greater Columbus Area steadily awarded relatively large total competitive dollar amounts, large average competitive grant size, and high per capita spending. Figure 11 compares the average competitive grant size with reach across a region s arts and cultural organizations. Cities and regions that fall to the left of the chart have smaller average competitive grant sizes, whereas those to the right have larger average competitive grant size; cities and regions at the top of the chart serve a higher percentage of estimated arts and cultural organizations in their area than do those toward the bottom. Figure 11: Average Competitive Grant Size & Estimated Portion of Arts- and Culture-Related Organizations Receiving Grants, % Average Compe ve Grant Size & Es mated Por on of Arts- and Culture-Related Organiza ons Receiving Grants, % San Francisco Chicago 40% 30% 20% Philadelphia Houston Denver Metro Region Greater Columbus Area Portland Metro Region Boston San Diego Cuyahoga County (Cleveland) 10% Phoenix 0% Bal more $- $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 $100,000 $120,000 Average Compe ve Grant Award Amount Section I: Competitive Grants: Overview16

17 Section II: Competitive Grants: General Operating & Project Based In this section, we look at competitive grant support awarded for general operating and project-specific purposes. Total Dollars Awarded, by Grant Type The yellow portion of the columns in Figure 12 depicts the percent of each region s grant dollars going to general operating support. Of the ten regions (excluding Boston and Denver Metro Region) that offered any competitive general operating support grants in 2012, Chicago awarded the lowest portion (41%) of its competitive grant dollars to general operating support. Six of the ten regions awarded over 80% of their grant dollars for general operating support. Figure 12: Distribution of Competitive Dollars Awarded by Grant Type, Distribu on of Compe ve Dollars Awarded by Grant Type, 2012 General Opera ng Support Project Specific Support Other (Specified) Unspecified 100% 90% 80% 6% 47% 5% 7% 5% 6% 11% 22% 21% 6% 2% 10% 70% 60% 16% 50% 40% 94% 13% 89% 82% 73% 100% 100% 94% 88% 30% 56% 20% 41% 10% 0% Boston ($0.1) Chicago ($1.1) Cuyahoga County (Cleveland) ($15.8) Denver Metro Region ($5.8) Greater Columbus Area ($3.0) Houston ($4.0) Portland Philadelphia Metro Region ($1.8) ($2.1) Phoenix ($0.3) San Diego ($6.2) San Francisco ($12.8) (Total Compe ve Grants Dollars (Rounded) in Millions) 10 For our purposes, we coded competitive grants into four categories: General Operating, Project Support, Other (Specified) and Unspecified. Denver Metro and Portland Metro s data did not distinguish the uses of all or some of their competitive dollars and were thus coded as Unspecified. Please see Appendix I for more information about our coding process. Section II: Competitive Grants: General Operating & Project Based17

18 The portion of Chicago s grant dollars allocated for general operating support has declined slightly since at least In 2008 and 2009, slightly greater portions of grant dollars were awarded for general operating support 55% in both years (Figure 13). In 2012, the largest portion of Chicago s Other grant dollars (47%) were awarded through Cultural Outreach Program grants and grants for individual artists. Notably, Chicago s average Cultural Outreach Program grant size was $19,400. The Cultural Outreach Program provides funding for arts programing and workshops for underserved communities. 11 Figure 13: Distribution of Chicago s Competitive Grant Dollars, % Distribu on of Chicago's Compe ve Grant Dollars, General Opera ng Support Project Specific Support Other (specified) 90% 80% 70% 35% 36% 47% 49% 47% 60% 9% 9% 50% 40% 10% 7% 13% 30% 20% 55% 55% 44% 44% 41% 10% 0% See Appendix II for more information about Chicago s Cultural Outreach Program. Section II: Competitive Grants: General Operating & Project Based18

19 Per Capita, by Grant Type Chicago awarded approximately $0.17 per capita in general operating support and $0.05 per capita in project dollars in 2012 (Figure 14). Of the cities/regions that provided general operating support in 2012, Chicago s per capita spending was the lowest. Chicago s per capita spending was also the lowest for project support. Figure 14: Per Capita Project & General Operating Support Comparison, 2012 Per Capita Project & General Opera ng Support, 2012 Project Support General Opera ng Support San Francisco $4.02 $13.67 Cuyahoga County (Cleveland) $0.80 $11.05 San Diego $0.29 $4.35 Greater Columbus Area $0.28 $2.04 Houston $0.41 $1.35 Philadelphia $1.19 Portland Metro Region $0.20 $0.71 Phoenix $0.18 Chicago $0.05 $0.17 Boston $0.20 $14.00 $10.00 $6.00 $2.00 $2.00 $6.00 $10.00 $14.00 In 2012, all cities that provided both means of support to arts organizations spent more per capita on general operating funding than project specific funding. The highest per capita providers of general operating support were San Francisco ($13.67), Cuyahoga County ($11.05) and San Diego ($4.35). Section II: Competitive Grants: General Operating & Project Based19

20 Average General Operating or Project Award Amount The following graphs illustrate the average award amounts for general operating and project-specific grants (Figure 15 and Figure 16, respectively). In 2012, Chicago s general operating support grants averaged $2,004 (Figure 15) and the average project grant was $786 (Figure 16) the two lowest average award amounts among the comparison cities/regions. In all cases, average general operating support grants are larger than project grants. Over the last decade, average grant amounts for general operating support across these cities/regions have remained more consistent than average grant amounts for project grants. Figure 15: Average General Operating Grant Amount, Section II: Competitive Grants: General Operating & Project Based20

21 Figure 16: Average Project Grant Amount, $20,000 Average Project Grant Amount, (in 2012 dollars) $18,000 $16,000 $14,000 Cuyahoga County (Cleveland) $12,000 $10,000 San Francisco San Diego Cuyahoga County (Cleveland) Houston $8,000 $6,000 $4,000 $2,000 $- Greater Columbus Area Portland Metro Region Phoenix Boston Chicago Section II: Competitive Grants: General Operating & Project Based21

22 Number of Grants Es mated % of Arts and Cultural Orgs Receiving Funding Number of Grants Es mated % of Arts and Cultural Orgs Receiving Funding Reach, by Grant Type In 2012, Chicago awarded 225 general operating grants to an estimated 23% of arts and cultural organizations in the city. In the same year, Chicago s 178 project grants went to approximately 18% of its estimated 996 arts- or culture-related organizations. These percentages are among the highest of the compared cities/regions. Figure 17: Estimated Portion of Arts and Culture Organizations Receiving Competitive Funding by Grant Type, 2012 Compe ve General Opera ng Grant Awards in 2012 Compe ve Project Grant Awards in % % % 35% 35% % % % % 25% % % 14% 16% 12% 20% 15% 10% % 15% 13% 18% 11% 15% 12% 20% 15% 10% % 7% 5% % 5% 0 Chicago San Francisco Denver Metro Region Philadelphia Houston Cuyahoga County (Cleveland) Portland Metro Region San Diego Greater Columbus Area Boston Phoenix 0% Note: Boston did not award competitive general operating grants, and Philadelphia and Phoenix did not award project grants in Denver s competitive grants were unspecified. Baltimore did not offer any competitive grants in Only Philadelphia and San Francisco reached larger portions of their organizations with general operating grants, 35% and 33% respectively. 0 Chicago San Francisco Denver Metro Region Philadelphia Houston Cuyahoga County (Cleveland) Portland Metro Region San Diego Greater Columbus Area Boston Phoenix 0% Section II: Competitive Grants: General Operating & Project Based22

23 Summary of Competitive Grants: General Operating & Project Based When separated by type of funding, Chicago s competitive grant dollars tell an interesting story. Unlike other regions and cities, Chicago typically invests less in general operating than other types of support (Figure 12). Furthermore, over the past 5 years, the percentage of competitive grant dollars allocated for general operating support has decreased since 2008 (Figure 13). Additionally, Chicago s average grant sizes and per capita spending by type are smaller than other cities/regions. However, due to Chicago s large number of grants, the city s coverage of arts- and culture-related organizations is among the highest. In general operating support, Chicago reached among the highest percentages of estimated arts- and culture-related organizations. In 2012, Chicago awarded 225 competitive general operating support grants, reaching 23% of arts and cultural nonprofits. San Francisco and Philadelphia reached higher percentages (33% and 35% respectively), but with a fewer number of grants (223 and 207). A few agencies opt to have larger average general operating support grants, with fewer recipients (Cuyahoga County, Greater Columbus Area). Cuyahoga County (Cleveland) had one of the largest average project grant sizes in 2012 ($11,707), and also reached a comparable percentage of organizations to Chicago with project grants (18%). Chicago distributed 178 project grants, which means that of the 996 estimated arts- and culture-related organizations in Chicago, roughly 18% of these nonprofits received funding. In Cuyahoga County (Cleveland), Cuyahoga Arts & Culture also distributed project support to roughly 18% of the region s nonprofits in this case, however, with 86 project-grants made to 468 organizations. In Figures 18 & 19, the average grant size is compared to the reach of the grants awarded. Again, these graphs illustrate Chicago s broad reach and relatively low award amounts. Section II: Competitive Grants: General Operating & Project Based23

24 Es mated % of Arts and Cultural Orgs Receiving Grants Figure 18: Average General Operating Grant Size & Estimated Portion of Arts- and Culture-Related Organizations Receiving the Grants, % Average General Opera ng Grant Size & Es mated Por on of Arts- and Culture-Related Organiza ons Receiving the Grants, % Philadelphia San Francisco 30% 25% Chicago 20% 15% 10% Phoenix Houston San Diego Cuyahoga County (Cleveland) 5% Portland Metro Region Greater Columbus Area 0% $- $50,000 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000 $250,000 Average Compe ve Grant Award Amount (2012) Section II: Competitive Grants: General Operating & Project Based24

25 Es mated % of Arts Orgs Receiving Grants Figure 19: Average Project Grant Size & Estimated Portion of Arts- and Culture-Related Organizations Receiving the Grants, % Average Project Grant Size & Es mated Por on of Arts- and Culture-Related Organiza ons Receiving the Grants, % 16% 14% 12% 10% Chicago Boston Portland Metro Region Greater Columbus Area Cuyahoga County (Cleveland) San Francisco Houston 8% 6% San Diego 4% 2% 0% $- $2,000 $4,000 $6,000 $8,000 $10,000 $12,000 $14,000 Average Compe ve Grant Award Amount (2012) 25

26 Section III: General Operating Support: Competitive & Non-Competitive Support Although competitive grants are the most prevalent sources of city-level public funding for the arts, they only tell a partial story of how general operating support is provided to local nonprofits. In addition to grants, some cities and regions use noncompetitive mechanisms to provide support directly to key institutions within their region. By non-competitive, we mean that there is no open call for applications akin to that used for grants; by non-competitive we do not mean that there is no competition for this kind of support. Indeed, the opportunities for such funding are often highly sought after and vigorously lobbied for. The cities or regions considered in this report use two mechanisms to provide noncompetitive support: city budget line-items and non-competitive grants. 12 Essentially these mechanisms function similarly, a key difference being who makes the award. Line-items are dollars allocated by the city budget directly to specific institutions, while non-competitive grants are awarded to organizations through the respective grant-making agency. Among our comparison cities/regions, Baltimore, Philadelphia, San Diego and San Francisco each provide line-items to flagship institutions. Denver and San Francisco provide non-competitive grants. Furthermore, while a few local arts agencies directly run programming and events in public spaces, such as parks and neighborhoods, we have only looked at public funding going directly to the arts and cultural organizations themselves. In this report, we did not include any funding for parks or recreational organizations, nor any funding distributed by Parks and Recreational Departments. The non-competitive support we include in the following section encapsulates a fuller picture of the means by which cities and regions provide general operating support. Non-Competitive Grants & Line-Items in Comparison Regions Prior to the establishment of the current competitive grant structure in Baltimore, the city awarded line-item budgets to select organizations. Now the city awards five major lineitem budgets to recognizable Baltimore institutions, and the city s Office of Promotion and the Arts awards competitive grants. In San Diego, in 1934 voters agreed to a portion of the property tax to be allocated to fund the upkeep of exhibits at the San Diego Zoo. Philadelphia has multiple means of contracting and apportioning line-item dollars to city institutions; all of these dollars are for general operational support. San Francisco, similarly, has contracts with a number of keystone city museums and cultural institutions to provide them with general operating support. San Francisco also awards noncompetitive grants for select cultural centers. The Scientific & Cultural Facilities District of the Denver Metro Region awards non-competitive grants to a number of organizations based on their high attendance rates. These grants comprise 86% of the SCFD s total grant dollars and are primarily for general operating support. 12 See Appendix III for more details. Section III: General Operating Support: Competitive & Non-Competitive Support26

27 Total General Operating Dollars With the addition of non-competitive grants and line-items to competitive grants, Figure 20 demonstrates the large role that non-competitive funds play in San Francisco, Denver and Baltimore s provision of general operating support. In 2012, non-competitive support comprised 73% of San Francisco s total awarded dollars, 86% of Denver s and 100% of Baltimore s. Figure 20: Total General Operating Support: Competitive & Non-Competitive Support (All Cities), Note: The spike in San Francisco s funding in 2011 is from a $15 million capital improvement grant for the War Memorial Building. Denver s Scientific & Cultural Facilities District (SCFD) awards two tiers of non-competitive grant funding. Tier I is comprised of five major noncompetitive grants to large organizations in the region the Denver Art Museum, the Denver Botanic Gardens, the Denver Center for the Performing Arts, the Denver Museum of Nature & Science, and the Denver Zoo and makes up 65% of the SCFD s total funding. Tier II makes up Section III: General Operating Support: Competitive & Non-Competitive Support27

28 21% of SCFD s funding. The majority of the funding for both of these tiers (95%) is used for general operating support; the remaining 5% can be used as discretionary funding. 13 In Philadelphia, 63% of general operating dollars ($3.0 million) in 2012 were in the form of non-competitive funding for local institutions, such as the Philadelphia Museum of Art. San Diego s one non-competitive source of funding for the zoo was 58% ($8.0 million) of San Diego s total general operating support awarded in Figure 21: Total General Operating Support: Competitive & Non-Competitive Support (Select Cities), Because they do not provide support via either of these non-competitive mechanisms, Chicago, Portland Metro Region and Phoenix remain the lowest funders of general operations among the comparison cities/regions. Boston does not provide any general operating support. Baltimore 13 For more information about the Scientific & Cultural Facilities District, please see Appendix II. Section III: General Operating Support: Competitive & Non-Competitive Support28

29 primarily provides general operating through five major budget line-items; hence grants only demonstrate a small portion of Baltimore s total dollar support for general operations. When the city temporarily stopped funding competitive grants in 2011 and 2012, the drop in total general operating support dollars was significant (approximately $3 million). Houston and Greater Columbus Area maintain steady general operating spending levels because they do not provide any non-competitive support. Per Capita Spending on General Operating Support Additional funding through non-competitive support increases general operating spending per capita in Baltimore, the Denver Metro Region, Philadelphia, San Diego and San Francisco. Figure 22: Total General Operating Support Per Capita (All Cities), Section III: General Operating Support: Competitive & Non-Competitive Support29

30 Baltimore, which did not offer any general operating support through competitive grants in 2012, spent $8.10 per capita in general operating support when line-item budgets are considered. Similar to Baltimore, Philadelphia s general operating support per capita increased from $1.19 to $3.11 in 2012 with line-item budgets. Summary of General Operating: Competitive & Non-Competitive Support Even with the inclusion of non-competitive support, the sheer number of awards both general operating and project-based that Chicago provides is far above most of the cities or regions analyzed in this report. In 2012, Chicago offered 225 general operating support grants that reached 23% of the city s organizations, 178 project-based grants that reached 18% of the city s organizations, and 51 other grants. In total, Chicago funded almost 43% of the nonprofit arts and cultural organizations in 2012, one of the highest coverage rates among cities or regions in this report. However, Chicago awards relatively small amounts of funding. Chicago s average competitive grant size was only $2,448 in 2012, whereas cities such as San Francisco offered, on average, $57,944 per competitive grant. In total, in 2012, Chicago distributed $1.1 million dollars in competitive grants, San Francisco, the highest awarding region, $47.8 million. Because of the low total dollars awarded and Chicago s relatively large population to other regions, Chicago also has one of the lowest per capita spending rates ($0.41; Figure 6). Taking non-competitive support, such as line-item budgets into account, Chicago falls even farther down the scale. Baltimore and Philadelphia awarded large portions, 100% and 63% respectively, of their total general operating support through non-competitive mechanisms, which increased their overall support for arts and cultural organizations. Figure 23 summarizes total public general operating support, provided through competitive and noncompetitive mechanisms, and the portion of each region s nonprofits supported with those dollars. In 2012, Chicago provided general operating support to 23% of its nonprofit arts and cultural organizations; only Philadelphia and San Francisco reached a greater portion of their organizations. However, Chicago s total general operating support in 2012 was $450,800, which is among the lowest total amounts of general operating provided by the cities/regions in this comparative analysis. Section III: General Operating Support: Competitive & Non-Competitive Support30

31 Es mated % of Arts and Cultural Orgs Receiving Funding Figure 23: Total General Operating Support by Portion of Existing Arts & Culture Organizations Receiving General Operating Support, % 35% Total General Opera ng Support by Por on of Exis ng Arts & Culture Organiza ons Receiving General Opera ng Support, 2012 Philadelphia San Francisco 30% 25% Chicago 20% 15% 10% Phoenix Houston Greater Columbus Area San Diego Cuyahoga County (Cleveland) 5% 0% Portland Metro Region Bal more Boston Denver Metro Region $- $5 $10 $15 $20 $25 $30 $35 $40 $45 $50 Total General Opera ng Dollars Awarded in Millions Section III: General Operating Support: Competitive & Non-Competitive Support31

32 Reference List Brest, Paul (Winter 2003). Smart Money: General operating grants can be strategic for nonprofits and foundations. In Stanford Social Innovation. Accessed September 26, Council on Foundations (December 2002). Board Briefing: Type of Funding. Accessed September 5, Grantmakers for Effective Organizations (July 2007). General Operating Support. Accessed September 26, Jagpal, Niki and Kevin Laskowski (May 2013). The State of General Operating Support National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy. Accessed September 21, Markusen, Ann et. al. (2011) California s Arts and Cultural Ecology. Funded by the James Irvine Foundation. Accessed July 1, National Endowment for the Arts (November 2012). How the United States Funds the Arts. Accessed September 5, Office of Inspector General (2011). Cultural Affairs and Special Events Eliminate Tier IV of City Arts. Accessed June 10, Rosenstein, et al. (July 2013) The distribution and policy implications of US state governmental general operating support to the arts and culture: Lessons from the great recession In Cultural Trends 2013, Vol. 22, Issue 3-4, pg Accessed September 5,

33 TECHNICAL APPENDICES Summary Table Estimated Number of NonProfit Arts and City Grant-Making Entity (or Entities) Population (2012) Cultural Organizations (2012) Baltimore Office of Promotion & the Arts (BOPA) 621, Boston Boston Cultural Council 636, Chicago Department of Cultural Affairs and Special Events 2,714, Cuyahoga County (Cleveland) Cuyahoga Arts & Culture 1,265, Denver Metropolitan Region Scientific & Cultural Facilities District 2,896, Greater Columbus Area Greater Columbus Arts Council 1,195, Houston Houston Arts Alliance 2,160, Philadelphia Philadelphia Cultural Fund; Philadelphia Office of Arts, Culture, and the Creative Economy 1,547, Phoenix Office of Arts and Culture 1,488, Portland, Oregon Metropolitan Region Regional Arts and Culture Council 1,690, San Diego Commission for Arts and Culture 1,338, San Francisco Grants for the Arts; San Francisco Arts Commission 825, See Appendix II for more information about each funding entity. 33

34 Appendix I: City-Level Data Collection This report included multiple layers of data collection. First and foremost, it was vital to identify peer cities and their grant making structures, and to reach out to appropriate liaisons. We identified peer cities based on similar goals and reputations as arts-friendly cities. Relevant contacts at each of these cities were identified and reached by phone or . All of our contacts at the respective cities or agencies were generous with their time and information. We are thankful for their time, support and guidance. There were three cities whose information was gathered from their online resources Boston (Boston Cultural Council), Columbus (Greater Columbus Arts Council) and Denver (Scientific and Cultural Facilities District). This comparative analysis represents a variety of grant-making structures as well as population sizes and geographic areas. While the heterogeneity of the grant-making structures makes cross-comparisons difficult, such an analysis provides insights into the many different ways and means of distributing grant dollars to local arts and cultural nonprofits. We were able to garner data from 12 cities and regions: Baltimore, Baltimore Office of Promotion & the Arts Boston, Boston Cultural Council Chicago, Department of Cultural Affairs and Special Events Cleveland, Cuyahoga Arts & Culture Columbus, Greater Columbus Arts Council Denver, Scientific & Cultural Facilities District Houston, Houston Arts Alliance Philadelphia, Philadelphia Cultural Fund and the Philadelphia Office of Arts, Culture, and the Creative Economy Phoenix, Phoenix Office of Arts and Culture Portland, Regional Arts and Culture Council San Diego, Commission for Arts and Culture San Francisco, Grants for the Arts, and the San Francisco Arts Commission Our request to cities was for raw, grant-level data that included the year, the name, and the size of the grant, as well as the name of the grantee. We do not report on individual grants or grantees, but individual data helped us construct a more nuanced analysis of the city s structure, funding and support. We reached out to 17 cities in total, but only 12 were able to meet our project timeline or had the data readily available online. Appendix I: City-Level Data Collection 34

35 Once the cities data were received, we coded the data according to grant type or purpose. Most often, cities coded their grants for us, providing a key for the names of the grants and their purpose general operating, project specific support, individual artist grants, festival, etc. If cities did not provide this data, we searched the agency s website to identify the names of grants and their purposes. In line with the goals of this research, we decided upon four main codes for competitive grants: General Operating Support, Project Specific Support, Other and Unspecified. The Other code is a catch-all for the various activities and programmatic support. For the uses of this analysis, we were mainly interested in the differences between General Operating Support and Project Support. Grants that were awarded to individual artists as fellowships, to schools for arts education, for organizational or individual professional development, or capacity building were coded as Other. Finally, neighborhood festivals and cultural outreach grants were also coded as Other. For a couple of cities, the coding was limited in terms of the type of grant. For example, the Scientific & Cultural Facilities District (SCFD) in Denver provides three tiers of grants. Tier III grants, which are competitive and decided upon by volunteer-led county councils that work with SCFD, do not have a formula for general operating or project support. The size of the grants, which were found online, did not distinguish between their purposes. Therefore, Tier II grants were coded as Unspecified because the purpose of each grant was indistinguishable from the data source. Additionally, Portland Metro Region s data did not distinguish the purpose of individual Opportunity Grants, so these, too, were coded as Unspecified. For more information about these grants, please see Appendix II. Appendix I: City-Level Data Collection 35

36 Appendix II. Information about Grant Making Agencies Each city and region has a unique story to tell about their arts and cultural life and organizations. The funding systems also tell interesting stories about the collaboration across counties, departments, and within city structures. We will provide a brief background on each granting entity. These synopses are by no means complete; every grant and grant maker has their own history, but this information is necessary to understand the nuances of each region. Baltimore, Baltimore Office of Promotion & the Arts (BOPA) The Baltimore Office of Promotion & the Arts offers a number of grants provided by private foundations and companies, but only one grant through the city, Creative Baltimore. Creative Baltimore has been offered since 2006; prior to then, all dollars allotted for arts and culture were given directly to organizations through line-item budgets (See Appendix III for more information about Baltimore s line-item budgeting). BOPA has since increased their competitive grant-making from city dollars. However, in 2011 and 2012 there were no city-funded grants awarded. Boston, Boston Cultural Council (BCC) Through the Mayor s Office of Arts, Tourism and Special Events, the City of Boston receives and redistributes public funding for arts and cultural organizations, as well as reimburses school field trips to these organizations. The Boston Cultural Council (BCC) is the arm that re-grants these public dollars, which come from the Massachusetts Cultural Council (MCC). The City of Boston does not award matching funding from the dollars they receive from the MCC. The majority of the grants are for specific projects or programming, and some awards are for field trips for schools. Schools are eligible to receive up to $500 for arts or cultural field trips, such as attending a museum or musical performance; these grants comprise the PASS Program. The Boston Cultural Council does not award general operating grants. Chicago, Department of Cultural Affairs and Special Events (DCASE) Chicago s Department of Cultural Affairs and Special Events (DCASE) currently awards three types of grants: Individual Artists Program, CityArts Program, and Cultural Outreach Program. The Individual Artists Program offers grants between $2,000-$4,000 to artists at various points in their career and working in a variety of mediums ( Cultural Grants ). The City Arts Program provides general operating assistance to organizations, and grants are divided based on organizations budget sizes. The Cultural Outreach Program is designed to connect educational arts programming with low to moderate- income neighborhoods across the city through outreach workshops, classes or performances. DCASE funds and operates free arts and cultural programming throughout the city, including, but not limited to, events and festivals in Millennium Park and Grant Park, as well as the Annual Chicago Blues Festival and the Annual Air and Water Show. It was estimated that in 2011 over 8 million people attended DCASE's programming and events. DCASE is also in charge of working with community organizations to organize and set up over 700 neighborhood festivals and parades annually. DCASE's in-house events and arts programming departments were allocated Appendix II. Information about Grant Making Agencies36

37 over $18 million of funding in In October 2012, DCASE released their new Chicago Cultural Plan, which is a "framework to guide the city's future cultural and economic growth" ("Department of Cultural Affairs and Special Events" pg. 67). Cleveland, Cuyahoga Arts & Culture The City of Cleveland does not have a body for distributing grants for arts and culture in any systematic way. Some small grants might go through the Parks and Recreation Department, or through Community Development, but the primary distributor is Cuyahoga Arts & Culture. Cuyahoga Arts & Culture is a political subdivision of the State of Ohio that was established by a referendum passed in Cuyahoga County in The vote passed a 10-year tax on cigarettes, which would provide funding for arts and culture in the county s 59 municipalities ( Mission and History ). Cuyahoga Arts & Culture offers general operating support, project support, and special initiative grants (these are commemorative concerts or individual artist fellowships). The first grant was a small special initiative grant for a public concert distributed in This singular grant was removed from our coded data because the full picture of Cuyahoga Arts & Culture s granting structure was not in full force until Cuyahoga Arts & Culture does not have a formula for distributing grants to more populous regions (i.e. Cleveland) nor a formula for needs-based distribution. Their grantees include nature, science, and garden organizations as well as art studios, theaters, etc. Applicants are judged by a national panel to assess the public benefit of a project. Columbus, Greater Columbus Arts Council (GCAC) The Greater Columbus Arts Council (GCAC) is a non-profit organization that receives funding from the City of Columbus, the Ohio Arts Council, and some private donations. From the City of Columbus, GCAC receives 20% of the 4% hotel/motel tax. For organizations, GCAC provides both general and project-based support, as well as Technical Assistance, which is designed to increase organizational capacity ( For Organizations ). GCAC also provides a number of grants for individual artists, including grants for supplies, travel grants, and professional development grants. Denver, Scientific & Cultural Facilities District (SCFD) In 1989, voters in the Denver Metropolitan area and the seven surrounding counties (Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Broomfield, Denver, Douglas, and Jefferson) agreed to allow the use of 1/10 of a 1% sales tax for arts and cultural organizations. The Scientific & Cultural Facilities District (SCFD) was established to distribute these funds. They offer funding in three tiers. Tier I and Tier II are non-competitive grants, in which 95% of the grant the organization receives is allocated for general operating support. The other 5% is discretionary spending; it can be used for outreach, collaboration, access or programming. Tiers I and II make up 86% of SCFD s funding, 65% and 21% respectively. The final 14% is for Tier III grants. A county volunteer committee from each of the seven participating counties distributes Tier III grants through a competitive process. The volunteer committees choose the awardees and there is no formula for general operating or project-specific support. In 2004, voters agreed to extend SCFD s operations ( History ). Appendix II. Information about Grant Making Agencies37