Feeds:
Posts
Comments

TAPA Advocacy Chair Chris Lorway orienting Arts Day participants

On Monday, November 14, Councillors from all corners of Toronto participated in the 2nd Annual Arts Day at the City. Led by the Toronto Alliance for the Performing Arts (TAPA) along with Friends of the Arts, arts sector workers, patrons and supporters gathered at City Hall to meet with 25 City Councillors individually to discuss the importance of the arts for Torontonians.

Participants presented a strategic message about the economic and social impact of culture on our city, and reminded Councillors of the commitment they made to increase investment by 30% over time through the adoption of the Creative Capital Gains report in May. There were three consensus priorities conveyed: invest competitively in the sector, lead the way in championing our rich cultural assets, and make affordable cultural spaces available across the City.

To the credit of participants, Councillors of all persuasions expressed support for a strengthened cultural agenda at City Hall. For the most part they even agreed that cuts to the sector are not warranted. Though despite their affirmations, some were shy to fully commit their vote until the budget is presented and negotiations begin. It seems apparent that the highly politicized environment at City Hall is leaving Councillors feeling restless and unsure about the fate of many city services and culture is no exception.

Given the circumstances, Arts Day was a very timely effort by TAPA and Friends of the Arts who worked hard to rally voices around a unified message and secure meetings with key Councillors. On the heels of a contentious core city service review, City Council is on the precipice of the sure-to-be equally controversial budgeting process. On November 28th, City Manager Joe Pennachetti will present the budget, reflecting the overall 10% cut to spending mandated by Mayor Ford. It is expected that not all divisions will be treated the same, though many programs and services will loose the baseline 10%. Others will absorb either more or less. Sound familiar? Like Stephen Harper’s Deficit Reduction Action Plan, Ford’s budget goals force all departments to face cuts.

We are operating in an environment where the question is no longer IF there will be spending cuts, but how much and to what. It’s possible that the City will not see culture as a target, and tread softly on this already fragile portfolio. One could imagine that there may indeed be some efficiency savings to be found, though one could also imagine reinvesting these savings into the sector… a step that Ford won’t support if he is to achieve his bottom line.

But unlike Harper, Ford isn’t guaranteed the favour of his government and he must convince a majority of Councillors to support his agenda. And so begins the highly politicized bargaining process that will dominate discussions in Council Chambers come November 28th. Motion after motion will cause the budget to shift and change as each proposition is debated and voted on. The budget process also allows for public consultation. Budget deputations are slated for December 8th and this day is sure to be another overnight circus similar to the consultations surrounding the service review.

Despite whatever news we may receive November 28th from Pennachetti, until the process plays itself out fully, the outcome will remain anyone’s guess. An important window exists starting now until the budget is passed early in the New Year to engage in the debate. Councillors want to hear from their constituents and in the coming weeks it will be critical that the arts sector organize its efforts so culture priorities are heard across all wards from local constituents.

Here are some things you can do:
1 – Show Councillors that Torontonians love the arts and sign the Friends of the Arts petition. This petition has nearly 20,000 signatures and will be presented to City Council on November 29th. Already signed it? Send it to 10 of your favourite arts supporters and ask them to sign too! Posting on your Facebook page works too.

2 – Might as well join the circus and sign up to make a budget deputation on December 8th. Or, if your routine is a little rusty, simply make an appearance at City Hall that day to show your support for the other arts and culture acts. Mike Layton offers a user-friendly blog post that explains the process.

3 – Re-live Grade 7 all over again and make a trip to City Hall to visit your Councillor! Bring an arts supportive friend from your ward who doesn’t work in the arts. If Grade 7 was a bad year for you and you’d rather stay home, a phone call is the next best thing. Or an email. An email is ok too. Find your Councillor here.

Don’t forget to review key messages and priorities endorsed by Friends of the Arts (including the Toronto Arts Foundation, ArtsVote Toronto, Arts Etobicoke, TAPA, Creative Trust, Lakeshore Arts, Scarborough Arts, BeautifulCity.ca, Business for the Arts and Urban Arts).
KEY MESSAGES
FACTS and FIGURES

Once the city’s draft budget is announced November 28th, Friends of the Arts will prepare and distribute a new message reflecting new information. Stay tuned…!

Meanwhile enjoy these snaps from Arts Day at the City.

TAPA Executive Director Jacoba Knappen speaking at Arts Day orientation


Our fabulous volunteers!


Andrea Vagianos and TAPA Board Chair Meredith Potter


Chris Lorway and TAPA Advocacy Committee member Jenny Ginder


Chris Lorway and Jacoba Knappen


Councillors Kristen Wong-Tam, Josh Matlow, Michael Thompson, Mayor Rob Ford, Karen Kain, Councillors Gary Crawford and Mary Fragedakis at the declaration of National Ballet Week

My attempts at live blogging at yesterday’s Arts Day meetings was a challenge given my slightly frenetic meeting schedule. However, I’ve updated yesterday’s blog with play-by-play updates and photos so please take a look!

Perhaps the highlight of the event was a couple of heartfelt speeches given by both Heritage Minister James Moore and Canadian actress Cynthia Dale at the closing reception. The energy in the room was electric and by all accounts a wonderfully successful ending to a wonderfully successful day.





A special shout out to my colleagues on the the Steering Committee, Eric Dubeau, Melissa Gruber, Sarah Iley, Bastien Gilbert and especially to Katherine Carleton who, as always, does more than her fair share. It’s been a pleasure and privilege to work with such great people who are so committed to advancing the cause of the arts in Canada. Hats off to you!


10:00am

It’s a beautiful sunny day in Ottawa today – perfect for a little arts advocacy activity on Parliament Hill. Just over an hour ago, 100+ members of the Canadian Arts Coalition from across the country headed out to meet with 120 MP’s, Senators, political officials, and Cabinet Ministers. We gathered before dawn this morning at the National Arts Centre for a breakfast briefing on the task at hand. Will Stuart and Jaqueline Larocque of Ensight Canada, the Coalition’s contracted government relations firm, walked us through our key messages and gave us some helpful tips and instructions for how to approach our meetings. Find our case online at www.canadianartscoalition.ca. We were organized into trios, with each team scheduled to attend 3-4 meetings throughout today. I still haven’t figured out how, exactly, this complicated meeting-organizing algorithm is applied but somehow it all works out. Some meetings began as early as 9am. As for me, I’m having a leisurely coffee before my first meeting at 12:15 with Heritage Minister James Moore. Wish me luck! I am energized and hopeful that these meetings will help the arts sector strengthen our relationships across all political parties and advance our common goals. More to come…

National Arts Centre


Canadian Arts Coalition Co-Chairs Katherine Carleton and Eric Dubeau


Arts Day participants


Heading to the Hill


Katherine Carleton et moi


Off to more meetings

1:00pm
The Coalition Steering Committee, consisting of Co-Chairs Katherine Carleton and Eric Dubeau, Sarah Iley, Melissa Gruber, Bastien Gilbert and I just met with Heritage Minister James Moore and his policy staff. We were thrilled at his positive reaction to our efforts to coordinate the sector from all parts of the country around key messages and he commended us for the way in which we created the conditions for a constructive dialogue between the sector and government, moving past the tensions that surrounded the 2008 election. On the list of discussion topics was how to sustain key investments in the arts, given the Government’s ‘DRAP’ – the Deficit Reduction Action Plan, intended to eliminate the deficit by 2014 through a strategic and operating review that would ask all departments and government agencies to offer up both 5 and 10% spending reduction scenarios for consideration by Treasury Board. In order to eliminate the deficit by 2014, a 5% savings must be found across Government, though some Departments will have to offer up more than 5% and equally, others may contribute less. The Minister assured us that the intention of this exercise was not to ‘cut’ unnecessarily, but to find savings that will have the least direct impact on artists and the stability of the arts ecology. The $2.9 billion budget of the Department of Canadian Heritage and its agencies (including Canada Council, the CBC, and others) will not be exempt from this process, though Moore reassured us that they are approaching this exercise, as he put it “with stilettos rather than hatchets”. He recognized the importance of the consensus issues we brought forward and reaffirmed the ways in which he has championed the culture file to his caucus. Then we took a group photo.

Melissa Gruber, Katherine Carleton, me, Bastien Gilbert, Minister James Moore, Sarah Iley and Eric Dubeau

3:30pm
My last meeting with Deputy Heritage Minister Daniel Jean took much of the same tone as the meeting with Moore, though Jean was even more straightforward about the need for all departments to contribute to reducing the deficit. He stressed that culture, overall, won’t be an exception though he encouraged us to measure our success by the degree to which our priority areas are affected. Less than a 5% reduction to the budget of the Canada Council, for example, would mean that the Council fared better than average and was seen by Government as a priority area. Spending reductions of any kind are hard to absorb in the cultural sector as it seems we’re known for doing more with less all the time. But understanding the bigger picture is indeed key to assessing the Government’s attitude toward cultural investment. I am now en route to Finance Minister Jim Flaherty’s office to meet with his Policy Advisor Andrew Rankin (not related to the Rankin Family or in any way connected to the east coast).

Signing in at the offices of the Department of Canadian Heritage in Gatineau

5:00pm
The meeting with Andrew Rankin at the Department of Finance was insightful. He himself was deeply involved in the arts growing up and seemed to inherently understand the importance of the arts to people’s lives and communities. He spoke openly of Minister Flaherty’s support of arts and culture issues and reported that he, alongside Minister Moore, is a major champion for us in the Conservative Caucus and in Cabinet. As we discussed our priorities and objectives, he encouraged us to respond more, as a sector, to positive policy initiatives that the government undertakes as this helps them gauge policy effectiveness. He commented that the sector is very vocal when we aren’t supportive of policy decisions, though much less vocal when we are. Now off to the ‘cinq a sept’ in the Speaker’s Chambers.

Micheline McKay and Erica Beatty



9:00pm
At the Ottawa airport now, waiting for Porter to whisk me home. The closing Arts Day reception, hosted by Deputy Speaker Denise Savoie, was a spirited event full of happy Coalition members and MP’s from all parties including Parliamentary Secretary for Heritage, Paul Calandra; Minister of National Revenue, Gail Shea; NDP Heritage Critic, Tyrone Benskin; Liberal Heritage Critic, Scott Simms and other art supporting MPs such as Charlie Angus and Justin Trudeau. Minister Moore made a surprise appearance and addressed the group with sincere support and gratitude for our efforts today. He encouraged us to continue working together and saluted MP’s from all parties who participated. “Supporting culture isn’t a left wing issue or a right wing issue, it’s the right thing to do”. Canadian actress Cynthia Dale also spoke, reminding us of the amazing work that artists do for Canada at home and abroad. She said, “We are an arts nation who create, perform and bring Canada to the world”. By all accounts, Arts Day 2011 was a great success and I’m so proud of all of the work done by the Coalition Steering Committee and its members. And most of all, I’m encouraged by the connections we made, and the relationships we built because it is the strength of this work that will help the sector move forward with strong support from our elected officials.

Signing off from Gate 26.

Reception in the Speaker's Lounge, Centre Block


Nathalie Fave and Stephanie Ballard


Justin Trudeau et moi


Minister Moore, Eric Coates and Micheline McKay


moi et monsieur le Ministre


Katherine Carleton, Eric Dubeau and Deputy Speaker Denise Savoie


Minister Moore and Cynthia Dale


NDP Heritage Critic Tyrone Benskin et moi


Leaving Centre Block




Toronto showed its true political colours in yesterday’s provincial election. With speculation that right-leaning Ford Nation would be the key to turning Ontario blue, last night’s results showed that in fact, this was not the case. At 53 MPP’s, the Liberals were just one seat shy of a third consecutive majority. While they did lose ground overall in the province, putting Dalton McGuinty “on a shorter leash” as Progressive Conservative leader Tim Hudak proclaimed in his post-election speech, not one seat was lost to the PC party in the Greater Toronto Area. And overall Liberal losses weren’t all PC gains. NPD supporters were thrilled to see a 7 seat gain over the 10 they previously held, nearly doubling their representation. Consider yesterday’s provincial election results against Toronto’s 2010 municipal election results, as depicted in these two maps.

Toronto's Ford Nation post 2010 municipal election

Ontario Election Results for the Greater Toronto Area

Given Ontario’s newly re-elected Liberal government, it begs the question – Does Ford Nation still exist? Since Mayor Ford took office on December 1, Forum Research has tracked his approval rating, reporting a solid 60% in late February to a declining 42% in mid-September. In fact, only 27% of Torontonians said they’d vote for Ford if an election were held tomorrow. By comparison, former Mayor David Miller enjoyed an 82% rating in May 2004, six months after he was elected.

Plummeting support for Mayor Ford is no doubt due to civic outrage at recently proposed service cuts. No gravy was found to balance tax savings and as Ford supporters are finding out, their loyalty was indeed captured with false promises. Cutting taxes while sustaining services is simply unattainable and with aggressive proposals on the table to cut, privatize and sell everything from daycares and libraries, to city park land and theatres, Torontonians are experiencing first-hand what an extreme right-wing political agenda looks like.

Toronto Service Cut Protest in Parkdale

At a time when civic engagement seems to be at an all time low (yesterday’s voter turnout was at a record low of 45%, down from 52% in 2007), these alarming cost-saving tactics attempted by the Ford administration have succeeded only at rallying the masses against him, creating perhaps one of the strongest displays of civic engagement Toronto has seen in a long time. Torontonians are NOT ok with radical proposals to decimate important services and they’re turning up in droves at City Hall to speak out against these quality-of-life-cutting measures.

While City Council is not a party-based administration, the Ford family has always made their Conservative allegiances very public – most recently hosting one of his famous barbeques, attended by both Hudak and Prime Minister Harper. A controversial You-Tube video (that has since been taken offline) captured Harper at said barbeque, commending Ford for his work in Toronto, saying: “We’ve starting cleaning up the left-wing mess federally in the area, Rob’s doing it municipally and now we’ve got to complete the hat trick and do it provincially as well”.

At the time, Ford was poised to publicly endorse Hudak, lending the support of Ford Nation to his campaign. But after the September polling results were made public, Mayor Ford and his dwindling disciples were viewed as more of a liability than an asset. So much so that Ford may have actually hindered the provincial PC campaign. It will be for the analysts to decide, but the results certainly speak for themselves. The GTA remains the Liberal/NDP fortress that it’s been for some time. Not even the Ford riding managed to elect a PC candidate. No hat trick for Ontario. Thanks at least in part to Rob Ford, Liberals take a ‘major minority’ and Dalton McGuinty becomes Ontario’s first three-term Premier. His victory speech HERE.


Over the next few weeks, the fate of many of Toronto’s valued programs and services will be decided at City Hall. Toronto’s core service review took another step forward on Monday, September 12th, when city manager Joe Pennachetti released his report outlining city recommendations for spending cuts – an attempt to reconcile an alleged $774M budgetary shortfall. The Ford administration is aiming to save $100M in 2012 – openly breaking a key election promise NOT to cut city services, while simultaneously reducing taxes. Even with the $500M surplus former Mayor David Miller left behind, Ford can’t make good on his word.

Since Torontonians began following the service review and its goal of reducing service spending, red flags have been flying in nearly every faction of the city’s public service sector. Things were particularly ugly at the epic all-night marathon of public deputations (live blogged by Torontoist) at City Hall on July 28th and then again following the release of KPMG’s report, shortly thereafter. The third-party consulting firm was hired by Mayor Ford at a cost of $3M to review services and recommend budget reductions. Those who have scanned the report have reasonable cause for alarm as KPMG systematically explores cutting pretty well anything that isn’t deemed mandatory or essential and therefore within the power of the city to cut. The report then rates each item in terms of its savings potential, risk and possible barriers. Seven service areas were reviewed including Infrastructure and Public Works, Economic Development and Culture, Parks and Environment, Community Development and Recreation, Licensing and Standards, Governance and Management, Planning and Growth Management and Executive Committee.

Service areas were measured against a handpicked control group of cities and other governments to determine whether Toronto services were being delivered below, at or above standard. Any service that was deemed to be “above standard” as compared to the control group was marked as “opportunity for savings”. Suggestions included things like reducing recycling targets, eliminating water fluoridation, further privatizing garbage collection and “reducing the number of subsidized child care spaces over time to eliminate 100%”. KPMG also proposed eliminating the Community Partnership and Investment Program (CPIP), which contains the budget for the Toronto Arts Council, as well as other cultural and social services with a total budget of $47.4M. The report states that “all these services can be reduced or eliminated, however these steps will impact the cultural vitality of Toronto”. The report also acknowledges that Toronto’s spending on cultural services per capital is lower than other cities.

Thanks to Councillor Michael Thompson, Chair of the Economic Development Committee, the importance of culture to Toronto’s social and economic wellbeing has been the subject of discussion at City Hall as of late. Thompson was the driving force behind the City’s recent Creative Capital Initiative – an effort undertaken in partnership with both the arts and business sectors to update the City’s 2003 cultural plan for the new term of Council. City Councillors recently voted unanimously to adopt the report Creative Capital Gains which set a financial target of increasing city arts investment to $25 per capita among other key recommendations. Thompson’s efforts also assured that the culture portfolio within city government was firmly rooted within the economic development file – a priority area of government for any city.

However, despite this commitment, Pennachetti’s report contained disastrous recommendations for the arts sector and Toronto’s economy, namely major spending reductions in arts grants as well as the sale of cultural assets. Local arts journalist Martin Knelman got wind of the news ahead of the report’s release and, to the surprise of the arts community, Friday’s Toronto Star news headline read Arts grants on chopping block. As was confirmed on Monday, the report proposes cutting all arts funding by 10%, eliminating grants under $10,000, selling city-owned theatres, closing museums and libraries, as well as eliminating $6M in grants to major cultural institutions including (among others) the Canadian Opera Company, the Toronto International Film Festival, Luminato, Pride Toronto, the National Ballet of Canada and Canada’s National Ballet School, the institution run by Ford’s very own arts advisor.

The story hit the news hard and fast – mobilizing the arts sector to advocate via an online petition stressing the importance of the arts to our city. Later that day, a senior official from the Mayor’s office assured reporters and the arts sector that Ford would not be entertaining such cuts but simply aiming to reduce city-run arts programs and services, redirecting savings to the Toronto Arts Council.

So, now what? In the coming weeks decisions will be made about the fate of arts investment along with a host of other public programs and services. First, Pennachetti’s recommendations will go to Executive Committee on September 19th. Executive will debate and vote on these recommendations, including any proposed amendments. They will then go forward for discussion among the full city council on September 27-28. The discussion and subsequent votes will determine the framework for budget 2012.

Given these imminent decisions, NOW is the time to contact your City Councillor as they will want to hear from their constituents in order to calibrate their vote on this and a number of issues that will be on the table. Sign the petition. Show your support by attending these meetings at City Hall.

It’s important to remember that despite alarming indicators, government decisions take time and must go through a political process, of which we can be a part. In the face of potential cuts, the arts sector can certainly strengthen its position in the coming weeks and leading up to budget 2012 by creating opportunities to showcase its economic and social impact on Toronto, reinforce its value to the business community, build alliances with related industry sectors, and stay top of mind for Councillors and constituents in the most positive way possible.


On Tuesday June 7th I had the pleasure of spending the day in Chicago where I participated in Future of the City: The Arts Symposium – a joint venture between the Cultural Policy Centre at the University of Chicago and the National Endowment of the Arts. The event showcased leading thinkers interested in enhancing the relationship between the arts and cities, helping to shape a conversation about what Chicago should be doing to enhance its reputation as a vibrant cultural capital.


The invited audience of civic, business and cultural leaders provided a dynamic mix of experience and perspective. And the discussion was timely, maybe even strategic, given the newly elected local government. Mayor Rahm Emmanuel recently appointed Michelle Boone – a long time member of the local arts community – as the new cultural commissioner. Under Emmanuel, Boone will help guide cultural policy and programming for the city and thankfully comes equipped with a depth of knowledge about the local arts scene – not always a given when it comes to political appointments. It seems that, like Toronto, Chicago will begin developing a culture plan as a first order of business of the new administration. Emmanuel has been working with a transition team on arts and culture to help bring him up to speed on the portfolio.

The symposium opened with a keynote address by John Holden, formerly a leading researcher from the UK-based policy think tank DEMOS and now a visiting professor in Cultural Policy and Management at City University in London. Holden has done exceptional research in cultural value, culture and class, and democratic culture. His ideas were among the most insightful of the day. He began with the notion that a city without the arts is doomed to economic, social and political failure – though he explains that the meaning of ‘arts’ and ‘culture’ need to be rethought in current discourse. He suggests three categories of arts – funded, commercial and homemade – as a framework for talking about cultural participation and explains how each has its own defining qualities. They are different, though undeniably intertwined. Funded art is defined through practice. What’s funded is funded culture. Commercial art places the consumer in the position of arbiter and success is market driven. In both of these cases, artists have to overcome obstacles to get their work seen by an audience. Homemade art, however, has low barriers to entry and constitutes a much wider group.

He offers that an old mode of thinking about the arts would have us dismiss commercial art as mere entertainment and homemade art as amateur. But in the new model, these three are intertwined and we move fluidly between them as cultural participants. We define ourselves by our choices within these spheres, not by our choices between them and cities are well advised to assess the larger landscape when considering policy and investment decisions. Where he recommends cities give attention is in the area of inter-connectivity. “Attract brilliant people, then connect them. Inter-connectivity builds human capital.” Holden illustrates how this is an essential underpinning of the creative economy and shares a model of how to talk about the different kinds of value that the arts bring to cities and communities as a way of building understanding among stakeholders and decision-makers. This model includes three interconnected viewpoints through which to consider the value of an arts experience – intrinsic, instrumental and institutional. Instrumental is objective – a tool or instrument to achieve another aim. For example, art stimulates economic activity, improves educational performance or lowers crime rates. Instrumental value can be easily quantified and measured. Intrinsic value is about what cannot be easily measured. It is the impact of an arts experience on an individual, as defined by that individual. This value is always subjective and a major motivator for personal arts engagement. The last value is institutional value and is defined by the ways in which cultural organizations behave. It’s not so much about what they do, but how they do it, which impacts our collective perception of trust, civility, equality and sense of social well-being. These values as Holden has defined them can provide shared terms of reference in articulating the value of the arts to citizens.

Other notable speakers included principle economist Allan Freeman who works for the Greater London Authority, responsible for Cultural and Creative Industries, the Living Wage and benchmarking World Cities. He is currently a visiting research fellow at the University of Manitoba. In his remarks, Freeman stressed that we must give more attention to pinpointing motivations for cultural engagement as an important metric that informs policy and practice. Sunil Iyengar, Research Director at the National Endowment of the Arts (NEA) spoke about how the NEA is reassessing current methods of measuring impact, including finding ways to measure arts impact on other areas of life such as prosperity and social health.

In Philadelphia, Mark J. Stern, Professor of Social Welfare and coordinator of Urban Studies at the University of Pennsylvania has been a principal investigator for the Social Impact of the Arts Project (SIAP) since 1994. SIAP has focused on developing methods for measuring how arts and cultural engagement influence urban communities. He presented compelling data that illustrated a strong relationship between social good and cultural resources in Philadelphia neighbourhoods. According to his research, art plays a significant role in social well-being, in particular on levels of stress, poverty and social inclusion within neighbourhoods. Notably, the highest rates of racial and ethnic harassment are found not in especially diverse neighbourhoods, but in neighbourhoods experiencing ethnic change. Where greater levels of cultural resources are available, diversity can persist more harmoniously amid ethnic and demographic shifts.

Over lunch, symposium participants were treated to an informal session with Wendell Pierce and David Simon from the popular HBO TV series The Wire. Admittedly, I’ve never seen this show, but there were definitely some fans in the crowd! Pierce reflected on the role of the artist as activist. He affirmed that art provides a place and a forum where we reflect on who we are and offer solutions to life’s challenges. In this sense, art is more than reflection alone. It is action. Though he laments that today there are many expectations of artists, and jokes that not only do we have to make art that entertains and transcends (without offending), but it also has to be cathartic, solve social problems, create jobs and help the Mayor fix the budget! Simon mused on the rise of the Internet as a tool that has democratized the creation and distribution of culture, while simultaneous brutalizing the notion of copyright and the value of the professional artist.

The latter part of the day focused on arts engagement and was animated by people who offered great examples and ideas on making creative connections between art and people. Maria Rosario Jackson, Senior Research Associate at the Urban Institute spoke about bringing the arts to where under-participants are. She gave great examples of artists working in non-traditional distributions modes, such as ‘Dinner on the L-train’, and suggested that the system (policies and investment) needs to catch up in order to support the diversity of forms of distribution and arts participation. She also introduced us to the idea of the ‘cultural kitchen’, explaining that while diversity is a key ingredient for cultural vitality, a communal space is needed – a space where we prepare something to bring. Audience engagement guru Alan Brown of WolfBrown Consulting spoke of the challenges of assessing how people are transformed by artistic experiences. He notes that we make a lot of assumptions about how people and communities ascribe value to our work and that we need to take the time to talk to our audiences in order to better understand value from their perspective.

Another memorable speaker for me was Theastre Gates, an artist and policy researcher (like me!) and Director of Arts Program Development at the University of Chicago. Gates spoke on the closing panel about how artists need more allies to their practices. Artists need to simply know more policy-makers so that there is a stronger exchange between those engaged in the practice and those decision-makers that govern the ‘system’. “We can marry our skills to make things happen… creatively engage one another to achieve innovation.”

Overall, the Chicago Arts Symposium was a great success, leaving participants’ minds percolating with new ideas and perspectives. More conversations like these, along with ongoing, meaningful research and active partnerships between the cultural sector and local planners and policy-makers will help reinforce the ways in which the arts can play a leading role in making cities great places to live, work and play. It’s refreshing to see that more and more, civic and business leaders are giving credence to the role of the creative economy and how the arts enrich the quality of our communities and neighbourhoods, inspire civic engagement, attract talent, and drive economic growth. With all of the right ingredients, Chicago is certainly on its way to becoming a world-class cultural capital.

The past few weeks have been densely packed with activities of an artistic nature for me and so my blogging has been sorely neglected. But I’m back at it just in time for federal budget day! And since there’s really nothing new to say on that topic, I thought I’d share some general thoughts on capitalization and the arts. The topics of new business models and changing capitalization strategies have been at the forefront of conversations in the arts sector internationally as of late – particularly in the US and the UK where government investment is weakening. As I follow these conversations and analyze new research, some interesting perspectives and ideas are emerging that could have useful applications in Canada. To help set the stage, I will begin with a mini-snapshot of how current models have evolved over the past half century.

For the past 50+ years, the arts have been growing up in Canada. Governments have seeded this growth with public money and over time have continued to play a key role in supporting the evolution of the country’s artistic identity. The Massey Commission (celebrating 60 years this year) gave rise to the Canada Council for the Arts. In its early years, significant investment was made via the Council in what are now our major cultural institutions – the National Ballet of Canada, the Canadian Opera Company, Toronto Symphony Orchestra, the Stratford Festival, the Royal Ontario Museum, and others. Many of these organizations pre-date the Council itself. In the decades that followed, a surge of infrastructure development occurred. Many important artists emerged and organizations were born. Arts agencies at the provincial and municipal levels were established and contributed further public investment on a regional and local basis. By the early 1990’s the Canada Council recognized that many cultural organizations – including aboriginal organizations and organizations outside of Canada’s founding British and French roots – were an important part of the country’s professionalized arts sector, and public investment was made available to these organizations where they hadn’t been previously eligible. In the mid-1990’s, this new surge of organizations and artists eligible for public investment, coupled with major spending cuts to the arts by governments at all levels caused a significant ecological disruption.

Now twenty years later, we have nearly recaptured the investment that was lost. Though, despite the slow and incremental growth of government investment over the past two decades, the sector itself has also continued to grow during this time, exceeding growth rates of most other industry sectors in Canada. With the development of the sector now easily outpacing the growth of government investment, we have found ourselves in a difficult situation, asking questions about how to protect and sustain our current assets as well as nurture the growth and development of future generations of artists. The capitalization models that succeeded in past phases of industry growth make less sense today when existing organizations are struggling to find stability and so many new high potential ideas and innovations are left unfunded by government sources. What are the new business models and resourcing strategies that will provide a platform for the next generation of development in the sector?

In the non-profit arts sector, adapting to change can be more challenging than we realize. It is often unclear whether an arts business is adequately transforming with its environment – maintaining or enhancing its value and relevance. In the for-profit business world, the market will very quickly determine whether or not a business has value and relevance. The bottom line is clear, and the profitability of a company determines its ultimate success or failure. But in the non-profit world, we operate in a different paradigm – one that combines both market and social value to determine overall value. And because consumers are not the exclusive customers of the non-profit, its possible that the public and sometimes private investments that partially pay for the operations and programs of an arts organization will actually protect an organization from its environment, sustaining it despite potentially declining value and relevance.

Where a manager operating an unprofitable business will eventually dissolve the company, a non-profit organization has no clear path to dissolution. Culturally, Canada is a young country, and so we are just now reaching a point where we are facing a more significant turnover in cultural leadership as many of our founding leaders are leaving us. While some companies will successfully transition their leadership and carry forward their missions, others will need to ask challenging questions about preserving legacies and dissolving infrastructure. This shift will undoubtedly affect the balance of the ecosystem, and produce effects we may not be able to anticipate.

In her article called ‘The Looking-Glass World of Non-Profit Money: Managing in For-Profits’ Shadow’, Clara Miller, CEO of the Non-Profit Finance Fund in the US discusses a common set of basic business rules and principles that apply to for-profit businesses but don’t have the same application in the non-profit context. She very clearly illustrates how the assumptions that we make when operating a for-profit, can’t be made in the non-profit context. Notably, she writes, “most non-profit missions dictate that they accept a ‘market defect’ of some kind – as a standard operating condition.” The arts lend itself well to this model because of the consistently high cost of production and the limited means of the marketplace to pay for it. The notion of subsidized arts has been around for a thousand years, beginning with kings and popes who patronized musicians, sculptors and painters to create works of art for their kingdoms and churches. Today, non-profit arts, as opposed to commercial arts are supported by governments, corporations and donors who contribute to providing all citizens, regardless of their ability to pay, the opportunity to participate in cultural experiences.

A socially focused mandate also implies that a business is essentially providing services to those who can’t pay for it, and then seeking subsidy for the lost revenues from other sources. In the case of the arts, the cost of access to events, performances, products, programs and services remain affordable in the markets served by the organizations through subsidies from government and the private sector. So this means that non-profits are essentially running two businesses – “the core, mission-focused business, and a second ‘subsidy’ business” that involves things like fundraising dinners, capital campaigns, endowment management, grant writing, donated goods and services and other creative income-generating solutions. These activities that are secondary to the core mission also require significant human and financial capital, though the public and private funders who contribute to arts organizations rarely want to contribute to these costs – preferring to focus their investment directly in programming, core services or special projects. Miller cautions, “funders can unintentionally contribute to the systematic under-capitalization of the sector – encouraging the growth of programs without providing for a commensurate growth in capacity.”

In January of 2010, Grantmakers in the Arts – a US-based association of public and private arts funders, launched the National Capitalization Project. The goal of this project was to begin a conversation about what funders might do to address the long-standing condition of under-capitalization in the arts. Recognizing that funding practices inform the behaviour of grantees, they understood that the leadership in addressing this issue had to come from them.

One of the major motivators for instigating this conversation now is that they were observing how increased growth in the sector, at a time of flattening or declining levels of available resources, were pushing organizations into a state of hyper-competition. They agreed that they needed to collectively promote a common set of principles and behaviours in their grantmaking in order to affect change in the wider ecology. This is what they came up with:

1 – Encouraging surpluses and operating reserves
2 – Encourage organizations to ‘right-size’
3 – Take the long view and embed capitalization principles in conversations
4 – Offer general operating support
5 – Project support should be targeted to core mission and fully funded
6 – Be clear about the structure and timeline of grants

Some of these are self-explanatory, but I want to comment a bit on the first two agreements.

Encouraging surpluses and reserves was probably one of the most significant agreements that this group of funders made. Current funding practices require applicants to provide a balanced budget when they request funding. It is assumed that if you’re projecting a surplus, then you must not need the money. While organizations are not generally limited to accumulating a surplus at year-end and even over time, they are not, however, encouraged to build these surpluses into their requests for support. Some of the suggested actions that funders outlined were to actually seed a reserve fund, topping up grant requests with additional funds or in the case of project grants, to ensure that administrative overhead is supported in addition to the core activity.

To the second point – encouraging organizations to ‘right-size’ – this corresponds to what I find to be an especially painful conversation happening in the arts right now about supply and demand. Some cultural leaders have suggested that we have an over supply of arts relative to audience demand – suggesting that downsizing the sector will compensate for lack of capital. Personally I think this is a problematic way to think about creative expression in a society. A prolific amount of creative expression and a healthy desire to pursue this work professionally is surely a sign of good health in a society. Can we really have too much art? And if we were to limit the professional pursuit of creative expression, what would we gain? Perhaps the better question is, what would we lose? While I don’t think supply and demand in the arts sector, writ large, is an appropriate conversation, I do think that supply and demand is a concept that individual organizations and content creators need to consider.

When I think about the idea of an arts organization ‘right-sizing’, this relates to an organization’s understanding of its core content, and the relationship of that content to a public or set of markets. It’s really essential, in fact, for any individual artist or arts organization to understand the market for their content and to pursue a working model with a scope and scale that is appropriate. It’s equally essential that we understand how this changes over time, as this will affect the scope and scale of the enterprise. Over time, it may need to grow, but it also (heaven-forbid), may need to shrink. This is where our current funding practices can get in the way as, generally speaking, funding rules are designed to promote growth. They inherently reward growth by providing more stable, less restricted funding for enterprises that reach a certain scope and scale. What is more essential for success and future sustainability is that potential revenues (both earned and unearned) are aligned with expenses for activities that respond to marketplace interests.

Any arts manager would agree that the challenges of capitalizing arts organizations seem to be greater today than ever before. Globally, public investment is trending downward, and in Canada, private investment has done the same. These trends may correlate exclusively to the economic recession, though experience tells us that once funds are lost, it takes a long time to recapture this lost investment – not only to recover what was cut, but to then also catch up to the growth and inflation that will have occurred in the mean time. Canada has done particularly well during the recession, economically speaking, and it is perhaps for this reason that we’ve seen little spending reductions to the arts relative to other countries. In the US, the National Endowment for the Arts was recently threatened with proposed cuts anywhere from 13% to an elimination of their budget entirely. When the 2011 budget was finally passed, they were cut by $12.5M, reducing their budget to $155M. In the UK, Arts Council England was left stunned after the newly elected government imposed a 30% cut to the agency. The Council applied the cuts by reducing the number of artists and organizations they support, as opposed to cutting all clients across the board. Some organizations saw their funding disappear, while some saw an increase.

These challenging economic realities have sparked important conversations within these communities about capitalization models, business structures, advocacy and public engagement strategies, and new private sector relationships. In the US, there are daily conversations at conferences, and through blogging sites debating the merits of new business models, new forms of audience engagement, the use of technology and arts education. In the UK, cultural leaders are strategizing on how to build a stronger culture of philanthropy to make up for big losses in public revenues. In this regard, Canada seems to be behind the curve – not having experienced these shifts quite so dramatically. But make no mistake, while there are certainly some unique qualities that characterize the Canadian system, we too are facing change in much of the same ways, and we need to start talking about how we will adapt before we are in an even more precarious situation.

Artwork by Gillian Hickie

As Canada approaches its third federal election in five years, Canadians are more skeptical than ever about our democracy. In the last election, over 40% of the voting population didn’t even bother recording their opinion in the polls. At 58%, 2008 marked the lowest voter turnout in Parliamentary history.

While it’s tempting, I’m not going to lay blame for declining levels of civic participation on Harper’s autocratic leadership style, or his government’s manipulation of Parliamentary process, or even his being found in contempt of Parliament. And, while equally tempting, I’m also not going lay blame entirely on the polarized environment created by a minority parliament and the growing intensity of party politics that force representatives to draw party lines before defending their constituents – though they are certainly contributors. But ultimately, party politics and an election campaign full of mud slinging and reputation crushing attack ads are not unfamiliar to Canadians. No, what I believe to be compromising Canada’s democracy and the willingness of Canadians to participate in it is much more fundamental.

The premise of a democratic governing system is that all citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives. One citizen = one vote. In 1867, Canada’s Constitution decided a minimum number of seats per province, though no maximums – theoretically to allow representation in the House of Commons to expand alongside population growth. Constitution also determined that each province would have at least as many seats in the Senate as it does in the House.

We’ve known for some time that as Canada’s population shifts toward urban concentration, that the population distribution among electoral ridings has become skewed. But how skewed? According to a 2010 report by the Mowat Centre for Policy Innovation – an independent, non-partisan public policy research centre at the University of Toronto – so skewed that Canada’s electoral system no longer meets international democratic norms. No kidding. If you thought American politics is messed up, you’ll be interested to know that the relative equality of a Canadian vote deviates seven times more than in the US! That means that the inequality experienced by Canadians is more than seven times as great as that experienced by Americans. Ironic, isn’t it…

According to the Mowat report, a whopping 61% of Canadians are underrepresented in the House of Commons. The report explains that the allocation of House representatives-by-population is what determines the overall ‘fairness’ of a democracy. Canada’s current formula is not only substandard to international norms, but it also violates the standard outlined in the Canadian Constitution.

Current rules state that provinces must have an equal number of House and Senate seats, and no province can have fewer seats than it did in 1985 – presumably protecting the voice of declining rural populations in Canada. The Mowat report notes that these rules have created “serious distortions in representations across the provinces”.

Particularly disadvantaged are voters in BC, Alberta and Ontario, with a relative vote weight of between 0.90 and 0.92. The concentration of youth, visible minorities and newcomers to Canada in these provinces with more populated ridings also contributes to a targeted, though unintentional, disadvantage for these voting groups. Comparatively, Quebec voters weigh in closest to the average at 1.01. Nova Scotia votes count for 1.18 while Saskatchewan voters are particularly influential, weighted at 1.39, along with PEI voters at 2.88.

So, how does the weight of your vote impact electoral results? Consider this: Fair Vote Canada – a multi-partisan national citizens campaign promoting fair voting systems for use in elections at all levels – highlight these stats from the 2008 federal election:

• 940,000 voters supporting the Green Party elected no one, while fewer Conservative voters in Alberta alone elected 27 Conservative MPs.
• In the prairie provinces, Conservatives received roughly twice the votes of the Liberals and NDP combined, but took seven times as many seats.
• Similar to the last election, a quarter-million Conservative voters in Toronto elected no one and neither did Conservative voters in Montreal.
• New Democrats: The NDP attracted 1.1 million more votes than the Bloc, but the voting system gave the Bloc 49 seats, the NDP 37.

Fair Vote Canada notes that Canada is one of the few major nations still using the first-past-the-post voting system (FPTP). Most countries have implemented other fairer systems because FPTP generally fails to provide representation for all voters and it usually fails to provide legitimate majority rule. What it does do is “distorts the will of voters, exaggerates regional differences, results in low percentages of women and visible minority MPs and creates apathy, cynicism and negativity among voters”. Sound familiar?

As election results become increasingly distanced from how individual Canadians are voting, our elected government will become more and more distanced from the values of most Canadians. It’s no wonder that we’re having an election every two years and engaging less and less each time. Does your vote really count? As the Mowat report points out, discussion around the issue over the last 30 years has focused primarily on protecting representation in areas with declining populations, while little has been done to address the weakened value of votes in more populated areas. While achieving perfect representation is not necessarily feasible or the desired goal, the current situation is dangerously compromising Canada’s valued democracy. With democracy at the centre of many election campaign conversations, the time is ripe for renewed discussion about electoral reform. Before you cast your ballot on May 2nd, ask your candidates how they will work towards electoral equality for Canada. Until we correct the issue of representation in the House of Commons and legitimize our democracy, we will continue to elect governments we don’t really want.

———-

Watch this short video produced by Fair Vote Canada to see how votes are counted using Canada’s current electoral system.

Big Parties from Fairvote Canada on Vimeo.

And, here’s a Toronto-based initiative led by self-proclaimed ‘community choreographer’ Dave Meslin called RaBIT: Ranked Ballot Initiative worth checking out.

A couple of weeks ago, I spent two days in America’s “Windy City” gathering information on the local arts scene and the corresponding policies that keep Toronto’s sister metropolis a thriving international cultural capital.

Chicago’s cultural politics have been on public display as of late, as journalists and members of the creative sector continue to criticize outgoing Mayor Richard M. Daley’s bold move to make some structural and programmatic changes within cultural departments after 21 years in office. Six months prior to his departure, Daley announced that the Mayor’s Office of Special Events would merge with the Department of Cultural Affairs to make the (big surprise) Department of Cultural Affairs and Special Events (DCASE) and that several of the city’s free festivals would be outsourced to private companies, potentially compromising their accessibility to Chicagoans and city visitors. As a result of the re-structuring, twenty-nine staff were cut from the former DCA office, though twenty of them were simply re-located to the Chicago Office of Tourism and Culture – a city-funded non-profit agency, where they will carry on with the same job profile as before. The staff shuffle was apparently connected to noncompliance with hiring protocols outlined in the Shakman Decree, though the situation seems more complicated than that and even those personally affected seem unable to explain or even speculate on the decision’s full motivation. Lois Weisberg, long-time Culture Commissioner and beloved local culture champion promptly resigned after the decision was made public, having not been consulted by Daley in the process. Nine cultural workers were laid off permanently though no grant programs were lost in the aftermath of the merge. Given Daley’s imminent departure, it’s still unclear as to whether the decision will stick. (Read more on Weisberg’s legacy here).

Chicago Mayor-Elect Rahm Emanuel

Mayor-elect Rahm Emanuel will take office in mid-May and members of the arts community are taking a wait-and-see attitude before fully settling in to the changes already in motion. A former dancer and White House Chief of Staff, Emanuel ran with a strong and positive position on arts and culture. When asked by Time Out Chicago how he would define the importance of arts and culture to the city of Chicago, he replied “The arts help to define who we are, and they make our city an exciting place to work and live while attracting business and tourism. I believe the city government can and must play a role that allows our arts and culture to flourish…” A coalition called Arts Power Chicago played a key role in bringing arts issues to the fore during the recent mayoral election. Much like Arts Vote Toronto, they articulated a set of priorities for the sector and organized an all-candidate arts debate, among other collective actions.

Millennium Park

Currently, the City of Chicago invests over $100 million in culture. These funds come only in part from the core Department of Cultural Affairs. Additional monies are leveraged through other departments, including the former Mayor’s office of Special Events, the Parks District (which supports museums), the Chicago Office of Culture and Tourism, and others. In addition to direct public investment, Chicago imposes a “Hotel Operators Occupation Tax Fund”, collecting nearly $14M in 2009, to bolster its culture budget. The city also leverages State and Federal cash through community development programs that funnel money to cities for redistribution. Toronto’s culture budget is currently at $45M, just under half that of Chicago. While this comparison speaks volumes in and of itself, the details of the policy framework are worth a closer look. As I met with arts sector stakeholders, including city staff, service organizations, foundations and corporate donors, I was able to gather some interesting perspective on Chicago’s cultural policy framework and how this system aims to support a thriving, internationally recognized culture scene.

Guggenheim Outdoor Stage at Milliennium Park

Unlike Toronto, very little of Chicago’s local public dollars are invested in the core operations of arts organizations. Operating funds from government sources are acquired primarily and often exclusively through State level investment, whereas local investment is focused in other key areas such as infrastructure and public access through event programming and promotion. According to the newly articulated mandate at the Department of Culture and Special Events, they are responsible for ‘”promoting an ongoing celebration of the arts, supporting the people who create and sustain them, and marketing the city’s abundant cultural resources to a worldwide audience”. The City of Chicago realizes this mandate by funding, programming and promoting thousands of free festivals, exhibitions, performances and holiday celebrations – presented at venues such as Millennium Park, Grant Park, the Chicago Cultural Centre and others (many of which are city-owned) – making the city itself the largest producer of cultural activity in Chicago.

Chicago outgoing Mayor Richard M. Daley

Former Culture Commissioner Lois Weisberg

Under the joint leadership of Daley and Weisberg, Chicago’s cultural identity developed and thrived through their sixteen year partnership, though for better or for worse, much of this evolution is undeniably connected to their shared vision, interests and ambitions. They were known to act on their interests, at times bringing home creative ideas from other cities they’d visit in the course of their international sojourns, finding ways to make them their own – such as the famous artist-decorated cow sculptures – an idea originated by artist Walter Knapp in Zurich, Switzerland – which Toronto also later mimicked in the form of moose.

The Chicago Office of Tourism and Culture (COTC) is also an important organization in the mix. It is a non-profit agency at arms length to the government that functions as THE major promotional vehicle for Chicago’s arts and culture scene at home and abroad. With a budget of $14M and 120 employees, it is funded by both city and state, as well as through private sector giving. It touts Chicago as a “premier cultural destination to domestic and international leisure travelers, providing innovative visitor programs and services, and presenting free world-class public programs”. Beyond its role as a culture cheerleader, COTC also programs events at city-owned cultural facilities like the Chicago Cultural Centre, Millennium Park and the Storefront Theater, among others. It also provides direct grants and other resources to individual local artists including the Chicago Artist Resource and the Creative Chicago Expo – two initiatives that were born out of the Chicago Artist Survey conducted in 2000. A similar survey was conducted in 2010 called the Chicago Creative Survey. These surveys help COTC periodically take the pulse of the sector and determine what it can do to better support Chicago’s creative workforce. In the last 10 years, Chicago has given focus to three emerging creative industries – the culinary, fashion and literary sectors – designing new programs of support to help nurture these burgeoning cultural scenes. The collaborative spirit within city government and the cultural sector seems to be a key factor in spurring development on all fronts, including the new and the emerging.

Boeing offices

Because the city is driving so much of the programming and production of culture, it also plays a significant role in cultivating private sector partners – acting as a major fundraiser. Together, Daley and Weisberg developed powerful relationships with key corporate businesses in the city, to ensure cooperation and a shared vision to build and celebrate the cultural assets of the city – attracting tourism, investment and talent. Their personal networks of civic leaders ran deep and in Chicago, a company’s relationship with the Mayor and the city are really important. One of my very first meetings there was with Angel Ysaguirre, the Director of Global Community Investing at Boeing – a company interested in arts and culture (as well as civic issues, environment, early learning, health and human services) as part of its mandate to be a good global corporate citizen. In this portfolio, Boeing positions itself as a partner interested in supporting participation and innovation, including “performances and exhibitions that introduce new voices and perspectives to our community; collaborative efforts developed to create a more sustainable arts and cultural environment; and programs that engage people to become lifelong arts and cultural participants, patrons or practitioners.”

Its Chicago office houses about 450 employees who are deeply engaged in the company’s local charitable mandate. Boeing contributes to the arts through business sponsorships, cash grants, in-kind support, as well as through their employee volunteering initiatives and Employee Contribution Program, where employees direct regular paycheque deductions to causes of their choosing. Their charitable focus on innovation means that, in addition to supporting large organizations and events through sponsorships, they also support small and mid-scale arts organizations through their granting programs. Angel explained to me that they see an inverse relationship between organizational size and innovation, with the largest organizations acting as anchors with established reputations that attract tourism to the city, and smaller organizations as innovative risk-takers that not only play a role in enriching the local cultural scene, but also tend to be more mobile, frequently exporting Chicago’s cultural products and reputation internationally.

Besides corporate partners, Chicago also has several arts-interested foundations, including one of the nation’s largest foundations, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. With an asset base of $5.6 billion, MacArthur operates throughout the US and in 50 countries internationally, though their cultural programs have a local focus in Chicago. They distribute $8M annually to the local arts and culture sector, 75-80% of it in the form of operating grants to 200+ organizations. Because of the relatively low levels of local public dollars supporting operations, MacArthur prioritizes this kind of investment in the arts through their giving strategy, reaching organizations of all kinds and budget sizes. In order to lessen overhead costs, it partners with other foundations to deliver funds. For large institutions (budgets of $2M+), it grants directly, for mid-sized organizations ($500K – $2M), grants are managed through a partnership with Prince Charitable Trusts of Chicago and for small-scale organizations ($500K and under) the Richard H. Driehaus Foundation redistributes MacArthur’s investment as well as provides assistance to applicants. Grants are commensurate with budget size and range from $2,000 to $100,000. In addition to providing operating support, MacArthur also engages in several special initiatives that strategically address key issues identified in the sector. Their ability to proactively initiate and lead such projects is significant to the local sector. As Program Officer for Media, Culture, and Special Initiatives, Deepa Gupta explained that special initiatives are meant to address issues pertinent to the arts ecosystem – projects “that could make a marked difference in the health of the sector”. These efforts leverage public and private dollars as well as galvanize the energy and will of the sector and important partners around key projects and initiatives. Currently they are involved in a national cultural data collection project, a local space rental subsidy program for small and mid-sized organizations, and a capacity building program for minority organizations, among others. They’ve also recently initiated a $1M Working Capital Loan Fund for existing clients of the Foundation to assist with recession-related financial challenges, as well as a $1M International Connections Fund to support the international distribution of local Chicago art and artists.

Another notable foundation is the Chicago Community Trust – a nearly century-old organization that was formed as “an innovative way for concerned citizens to put charitable dollars to work for the benefit of metropolitan Chicago.” The Chicago Community Trust grants over $100 million per year, strategically directed to supporting Arts and Culture, Basic Human Needs, Community Development, Education and Health. The Trust is a convener of non-profits, local governments and businesses, leveraging “knowledge, creativity and resources for a greater impact”. In the Arts and Culture division, current priorities include artistic and cultural diversity as well as organizational development through their Art Works Fund – a funding initiative directed specifically at helping strengthen the management and operations of small arts and cultural organizations. The Trust also partners in research initiatives and in 2009 worked with Arts Alliance Illinois to develop The Arts and Culture Report to support the GO TO 2040 comprehensive regional planning effort led by the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP). The report articulates a vision for Chicago’s arts and culture sector along with a series of 23 recommendations for action. It’s well worth reading all 57 pages.

At The Trust, I had the good fortune of meeting with Cheryl Hughes, who is a former employee of 17 years at the Mayor’s office of Special Events, as well as a member of incoming Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s transition team on arts and culture. She is also the author of a shiny new graduate thesis that analyses the structure and policies of municipal arts agencies in America’s top 60 cities – measuring them against Florida’s Creativity Index. Needless to say, I could have spent all day in her office and emerged fully educated on Chicago’s cultural policies and how they fare relative to other cities all over the US. With the hour I had, she shared with me her recent graduate work, which I have discovered is a goldmine of great information about how cities can enhance their role and status as creative capitals. Her research findings conclude that there are four significant indicators that affect a city’s ranking on Florida’s Creativity Index. They are: 1) the presence of a local government funded culture department or agency, 2) the scope of programs and services provided by such agencies, 3) the presence of a public art program; and 4) city-driven cultural planning efforts.

Using Hughes’ indicators, Chicago fares very well and at first glance, Toronto also seems to perform strongly in all four areas. Though, I would add a caveat that while Toronto has a cultural planning process in place, it is currently not integrated into the plans and priorities of other relevant city departments, and has to fight for implementation dollars amid a host of other spending considerations. Chicago’s GO TO 40 regional plan is a noteworthy example of how a city can effectively integrate planning processes across departments, though it’s worth mentioning that this was developed in a context where there was 16 years of continuity within city administration.

After my return to Toronto, I contacted Julie Burros, Chicago’s Urban Planner responsible for culture, to find out more about her role and how she works with city government and the local arts community. Together with a small staff team, she acts as a high level advisor and advocate for cultural development inside wider city planning processes. She collaborates closely with other government branches such as zoning, transit, business development, housing and others to inspire and implement cultural development projects. She shepherds projects like the development of cultural districts, the designation of city-owned land or property for arts uses, capital projects for cultural infrastructure development and renewal, and the development of artist live/work spaces. Sometimes these projects are led and managed by the city, though often they’re led by arts organizations in the community. When cultural development projects are in motion, she and her team are important intermediaries between cultural organizations and the city. They navigate a complicated bureaucracy in order to help artists and arts organizations leverage the city’s programs, assets, policies and resources for cultural development of all kinds. At times, cultural planning specialists are like pro bono consultants to the arts community – especially small and mid-sized companies – ensuring they have the necessary permits, are accessing available funds, and connecting with relevant departments in the process of realizing a project. Having cultural specialists embedded at a high level of city planning is an intelligent organizational design that ensures arts development opportunities are fully integrated into big picture city planning agendas.

Chicago skyline

As the Toronto Creative Capital Initiative assembles its recommendations on how the city can become a world-class cultural centre, it’s worth remembering that it is our artists and arts organizations that are the heart of the creative city. They are the ambassadors and front line public service deliverers of Toronto’s cultural goods and their ability to live and work sustainably in Toronto relative to elsewhere is an important gauge when measuring the current and future potential of our city as a creative capital. Unlike Chicago’s more bureaucratically controlled system, Toronto’s system of support is based on the premise that public investment is best spent directly supporting artists and organizations working on the ground in neighbourhoods and communities, making Toronto the vibrant cultural Mecca that it is. However, insufficient public investment that hasn’t kept pace with the exciting growth in the industry has, over time, reduced the capacity of the sector to deliver on the city’s goals and aspirations to attract and retain talent, incent economic development and build international profile. So quite simply, if the city wants to improve its global rank and status as a premiere place to live, work, and invest, it should first and foremost equip the cultural sector to deliver by increasing its investment now and in future, ensuring we don’t fall behind our competitors as we have. Important private sector relationships must also be further developed, providing complementary systems of support and promotion at all levels of infrastructure.

Chicago Cultural Center

Beyond direct investment, the city can more proactively promote its cultural assets, working together with service organizations and other agencies like Tourism Toronto to raise the profile of Toronto culture at home and abroad. Encouraging cultural exchange throughout the city region as well as nationally and internationally is an essential part of establishing Toronto as a premiere creative centre. Mayor Ford and other civic leaders should be at the forefront of these efforts. Furthermore, the city could take a greater role in coordinating efforts around bigger sector-wide goals like arts education, the development of cultural districts, affordable artist housing, and cultural infrastructure repair and development. This can be achieved through the integration of culture into higher-level city-planning processes across departments and by strengthening relationships wit the private sector. As urban planners, architects, designers, promoters, politicians and civic leaders gather to set city-building agendas, culture should be an important item on that agenda – ensuring that as we build and maintain roads, parks, sewers and bridges, we also plan and maintain our cultural facilities, treasure our heritage, provide affordable live/work space for our artists, map our arts districts and promote our cultural scenes.

Like it’s sister city of Chicago, Toronto is already a vibrant cultural centre that we can all be proud of. Now more than ever, city leaders within government, private and non-profit sectors must recognize and leverage the potential of the cultural sector to improve Toronto’s position among the ranks of world-class cities – as a true leader in today’s creative economy. Lessons can be learned from other leading global cities, though many solutions will also be homegrown. Great cities lead the way forward, and Toronto has all the talent and potential to set the bar high.

continued from previous post…

Part Three – Private Sector Giving and The Foundation Center

Lincoln Monument

My last stop in Washington was the Foundation Center where I spent some time combing through their exclusive access database. I was curious about how foundations play role in resourcing the arts, given lower levels of public investment relative to Canada. When it comes to charitable giving, America’s reputation is strong and I am increasingly interested in how we can learn from our southern neighbours in terms of building stronger ties with the private sector in order to address growing challenges of capitalization. What I am particularly interested in is the prevalence of foundation giving in the US for artists and arts organizations of all kinds and sizes.

White House

While most private sector giving comes from individuals, foundations and corporations make major contributions. In 2008, the private sector contributed $12.34 billion to arts and culture overall, representing about 4% of total charitable giving in the US. Foundations account for about a quarter of that contribution. According to the Foundation Center, the 1,490 larger foundations included in their 2008 sample awarded 22,902 arts and culture grants totaling $3.2 billion. Nearly 10,000 of those grants were given to organizations with budgets under 25,000. Giving to the arts represents 12.5% of overall foundation giving, a much higher instance of giving than in the private sector at large.

Alongside the reflecting pool

In Canada, there are only a small handful of private foundations that give to the arts, meaning that the nature of private sector giving is almost exclusively through one to one relationships between an arts organization and an individual or corporation. This leaves the responsibility of cultivating private sector relationships and the attached benefits to the arts organization itself and it’s no surprise that in this model, the capacity of an organization has a relationship to its ability to cultivate private sector resources. It seems that by and large, the bigger the organization, the more private sector support (as a percentage of budget) it tends to receive. Inversely, the smaller the organization, the more reliant it is on public resources. Furthermore, as new generations of arts innovators look for seed money from public coffers, it is in our collective interest to find new, substantive sources of revenue to resource the arts at all levels of infrastructure in order to ensure that new entry into the system of public investment is possible – supporting new artists and ideas now and for years to come.

Smithsonian

While Canadian governments, with some exceptions, are doing their best to hold the line on arts investment, the sector is still grossly under-resourced and even with the hope of post-recovery gains on the horizon, government investment will never catch up or keep pace with the growth of the arts sector. Figures I obtained from Toronto Culture Division indicate that since 1992 the arts sector in Toronto has grown by 144%. In that same period, public investment has grown by 117% and private sector contributions have increased by 250%. The situation is likely similar across the country.

Atrium at the Smithsonian

Given the current environment, change is inevitable. In tandem with our efforts to make the case for new public investment, we also need to put energy toward cultivating private sector support in a new way. The traditional one to one relationships that we’ve established over the years won’t be enough. We need to think more creatively about how we can work with the private sector to build common cause. Foundation giving is but one model to consider and there are many others.

Here are some inspiring examples of foundations in the US as food for thought:
The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation
The Doris Duke Charitable Foundation
Boeing
Creative Capital
United States Artists

Deciphering the situation of arts investment, advocacy and policy outside of our borders brings to the fore new information that helps us re-evaluate our own work. I hope to continue my research by looking outward for inspiration on new ways to think and innovate. Stay tuned for more to come.

Capitol Hill

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 117 other followers