Except for a couple research papers, something I am trying to avoid covering too much here, I haven't really come across any new and interesting ideas lately. Perhaps it is the summer days making me lazy, but I am actually reading articles as much as I have ever been. However, I don't know that discussing the success of the Yuengling brewery has a lot to teach the arts at this point. (Though they did weather Prohibition and the Depression so perhaps it offers a lesson in survival during bad economic times.)
On the other hand, it doesn't take a lot to read my entries these days! I am sure to find something interesting and applicable soon enough so keep on stopping by!
Last month I made an entry about the Seattle theatre On the Board's use of blogs to present attendee's reviews of the shows. I had been disappointed by the fact that an administrator from the theatre was acting as a gatekeeper and approving the entries.
I came across a Seattle Post-Intelligencer article via Artsjournal.com today that discusses the blog project in a bit more depth. I accept that they felt the post approval process was necessary to avoid language and personal attacks. I have read some internet forums where the conversation left the topic and devolved into such attacks. I have also been a member of forums where people were very civil and the worst attacks were teasing about someone's love of Kit-kats. I think it insults the audience to assume that things are going to go badly from the outset.
I have purposely left the comments portion of this blog open for that very reason. If anyone wants to post something, good or bad, they are free to. This is not to say I don't keep an eye on what is said and edit it. To this point, I have only removed ads for penis enhancement. I may edit derogatory language in the future, but I prefer to leave things open at all times. I believe that the power of this medium lies in the fact that someone can say something incredibly critical of someone and there is an opportunity for someone else to see it or Google to archive it before it gets deleted.
This has happened recently with the federal government before they took steps to avoid having their pages archived. Departments shifted their officially stated policy and tried to make their webpages seem like it was always that policy until someone dug up the archived copy that showed it wasn't so.
Because it is so easy to make changes to electronically presented material, the "truth" become violatile and transient. Even if it reflects negatively on me, I think it is important that there exists an opportunity for my critics to discover what it was I deleted in anger.
My philosophy of the blogosphere notwithstanding, I did find a couple of things On the Boards is doing to be interesting. The fact they are not just letting audiences know the opportunity to blog exists, but rather are inviting specific people to review them is great. (Though they undermine their position of openness credibility by reserving the right to edit.) Despite the fact many people seem to have no problem expressing their opinion online, there are still many folks who have strong views and don't comment. (Hint hint all ye readers of my blog.) Picking people to write gets the ball rolling and insures at least their friends will visit the site to read what they had to say.
It is no surprise what other parts of the article I found interesting--it was the sections that confirmed my vision of what blogging can bring to arts organizations."Because OTB performances typically run either three or four nights and daily newspapers no longer review theatrical events overnight, people who wait for a critical heads-up before deciding to buy a ticket have a single night to do so, at most two. By that time, if it's a hot performance, tickets are gone.
Imagine for a moment that newspaper reviews were plentiful, timely and unfailingly expert. They would still be one-way streets. Critics expound. Readers moved to reply have to write the critic for a response or write the editor to see their letter in print, and by that time the performance has concluded its run.
OTB bloggers begin typing after the curtain closes, posting their reviews opening night. Readers respond and presto: OTB has a real dialogue on its hands."
and a little further on:
"What a gift, especially if you happen to hang out with dullards. You love them, but they're more likely to sprout wings than be able to discuss the aesthetics of Shaw on stage. Now you can kiss your dullard goodnight and log onto the intellectual action. "
I especially liked this last bit because I had never thought about it before. It isn't world shattering and a bit humorous, but it does take the pressure off a friend/significant other who attends with an avid arts lover to provide an intelligent discourse on what they just saw. Husbands already feel they have done enough by staying awake through the ballet but to have to talk about it afterward! That is the straw that breaks the camel's back! Now they can be judged a good spouse for tolerating a night at the ballet because there is a ready made community in which the wife can debate the finer points ad infinitum.
Of course, as an arts administrator, my goal would be to find a way for the husband to enjoy himself as well. For those who are interested in the arts but are intimidated, the blogging and discussion forums can be as valuable a resource as it is for the afficinado. People's true identities are protected by the nicknames they assume so the novice attendee can feel comfortable asking elementary questions without fear of being identified in the lobby as the stupid one. Or they can simply lurk in order to read and learn from what other folks have to say.
Dang, I really need to get employed soon. I am just dying to start to put some of these ideas to use!
Comments anyone?
Though I have a couple research papers I can discuss, I hate to have this blog get bogged down with me summarizing stats and figures. While it can certainly can provide interesting information and allow arts folks to make a decision about whether they want to read the original document, it can get boring.
That being said, I did spend yesterday trying to find out if anyone has done research on university-arts organization relationships like those I discussed yesterday to see how each fared in promoting their individual agendas and preserving their identities. If anyone knows of any, please let me know.
In an attempt to provide some interesting material, I found an interview with Douglas McLennan, the gentleman who writes/edits Artsjournal.com. He has been writing Artsjournal since 1999 and discusses some of the trends he sees in arts worldwide.
Among the trends he has seen have been: concern about arts funding and the digital age blurring the lines of who owns what and what constitutes ownership. He also notes that since Sept. 11, people have become much more conservative in their artistic tastes. There isn't as much an interest for in your face art. Rather people are looking for offerings that make them feel comfortable or lift them up.
When asked why he started Artsjournal.com, he mentioned that as a writer for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer he came across some articles on the web that were very interesting and he wondered why he had never heard about these stories in the months since they came out. He decided to create a website that collected a broad range of arts stories in one place so people could quickly get a sense of what was happening internationally in the arts.
His decision to add bloggers to his website came out of a recognition that arts coverage was declining in the newspapers and journals across the country. He wanted to provide a place where intelligent discourse on arts topics could be presented without the concern for space and time that other media face. He also feels that the presence of conflicting views allows the web to present a product of higher quality than a newspaper.
A newspaper arts writer may feel compelled to be nice because they are the only voice about the arts in town. When there are many voices expressing their views on the same work, it allows the individual more freedom to present their true views because responsibility for a show's success or failure doesn't rest solely on their shoulders. They are important opinion leaders, but not the only opinion leader. The competition pressures the writer to keep his/her skills sharp and to consider a wide range of perspectives.
Give it a listen if only to hear the voice behind the website.
Over the course of the last few years I have noticed a number of arts organizations which have allied themselves with state universities in order to alleviate some financial difficulties. Many of these relationships have been more or less alliances and partnerships. However, in a couple cases it has been more akin to selling off one's soul piecemeal.
As I have written about before, the Asolo Theatre in Sarasota, FL started out as a partner of Florida State University. At one time the Asolo and FSU built a facility together which ended up housing the theatre and the university acting and motion picture, broadcast and radio conservatories. As financial difficulties mounted, the theatre company turned to the university for help and the school ended up owning pretty much everything the theatre owned. In time they were actually paying the salaries of seven of the theatre company's top staff.
The last time I was down in Sarasota I found that Florida State University had also taken over the administration of Ringling Museums (not to be confused with the Ringling School of Art and Design) which shared a parking lot with the Asolo. (At one time the Asolo Theatre Company performed on the Ringling grounds in an Italian Baroque theatre brought over from Italy.) The museum had been struggling financially for years and turned to the state for help.
Given that the Sarasota Ballet moved in to the vacant Film Conservatory space when that educational unit moved back to the main campus in Tallahassee, Florida State University actually exerts some control over three formerly independent arts organizations. Of the three, the ballet still retains the most autonomy because they are more or less a resident of a state owned building rather than subject to its governance.
A similiar thing happened in Orlando when I was working at the University of Central Florida. The Civic Theatre of Central Florida was in financial trouble. They turned to the university, merged with the university theatre and now after a couple of gradual steps the space is now a venue of the university theatre program. The old Civic Theatre operates in some of the spaces as Orlando Rep (though you wouldn't know it since the Theatre Dept website doesn't mention them). However, the board of directors is heavily compromised of people from UCF's development, university president and arts and sciences dean's offices.
While this state of affairs does show that the State of Florida does actively support the arts, one wonders if it is worth it in the long run. When you are beholden to the state, many of your decisions are open to scrutiny and questioning not only by your own board of directors, but by myriad people in state government.
A case in point, the Asolo's agreement with Florida State Univ. was that the producing artistic would retire in 2003. He decided he wasn't going to retire so the university decided it wasn't going to continue to pay the salaries of the top 7 administrators if he wasn't going to leave. The theatre board resolved to pay the $400,000 in salaries in order to keep him at the helm. The university also decided to pull the acting conservatory back to the main campus in response to the weakening relationship it was having with the professional company. This news pretty much horrified the community.
Since then, things have been resolved and the conservatory is slated to stay. (Though people are wondering about that in light of some recent events.) It just illustrates the dangers of looking to a state institution to save you.
There is also the question whether weak organizations should be propped up by the state and given the security to perpetuate poor practices on the tax payer's dime or not. I personally would be heartbroken to see the Asolo close or the Ringling end up selling off all its art works because it couldn't keep afloat.
But the truth is, the state doesn't really know how to run theatres and art galleries. The conservatory faculty that has taken up residence as partners are focussed on education and not administration of the other organization. The state isn't in the best position to come in and provide expertise and guidance as to what was done wrong and what steps can be taken to improve the situation. The best they can do is hire consultants to provide guidance in their stead. To the best of my knowledge this did not happen in any of these instances.
With cuts to both arts and education in many states, these organizations may find that they have just delayed the inevitable and that they may soon have to fend for themselves.
One area I have been involved in either directly running or indirectly supervising nearly everwhere I have worked is the front of house. Depending on where you are, this phrase can encompass both the box office and house management or just house management. Today I wanted to focus just on house management.
Because box office handles money, the area is usually given the attention it is due. In the course of attending performances though it has seemed that the whole concept of house management is limited to instructing people to smile, hand out programs and point to the restrooms. This may be okay for the spring high school musical which only happens once a year, but anyone doing performances on a regular basis owes it to their audience to have formal processes in place.
Some theatres I have worked at have required the front of house staff to be certified in CPR and First Aid. I believe in certain categories of theatres in New York City it is required by law. This is one of the best indicators of how important the training of a house staff can be. If there is an emergency, they are in a position of being the first representatives of the organization on the scene. How they act and what they are able to do reflects most on the institution.
Even if it is not feasible to have all your ushers trained in CPR, there should be a procedure established to deal with emergencies. If there is problem who should be called? This doesn't mean just dialing 911, but if you are on a college campus do the campus police need to be called, do you call the managing director, etc? Where is the phone that is used? Is it accessible? In some theatres the box office is closed up by the second act. If that is where the phone is and no one has been given a key, lives could be in danger. How do you communicate with the stage manager and performers that the show needs to halt to allow paramedics to enter in the next 3 minutes?
If there is a fire who makes an announcement? What doors are opened and where are ushers stationed to direct people outside? Are there enough flashlights on hand to address this situation?
If the power goes out who goes on stage with a flashlight to make an announcement while someone else calls the power company to determine how long the delay might be. What do you tell people about the refund policy if the show can't go on?
In the course of my career I have been fairly lucky and had no fires, a couple heart attacks/strokes, a number of trip/falls and a few power outages. In all cases I was glad that I knew the procedure of handling and reporting these problems.
House manager and usher training is, of course, not all about emergencies, but the more mundane task of good audience relations. Knowing who to call to adjust the heat or air conditioning isn't as crucial as calling 911 but it is important to the audience. The same is true of knowing what house seats are available to alleviate ticketing problems.
Their role of the front of house staff starts before the audience even arrives. Among the things they should be doing before the theatre opens is checking the cleanliness of the facility.
Even if you have a cleaning crew, it is useful to have ushers checking the lobby, restrooms and seating area for garbage that might have been dropped since the cleaning people were there. Burned out light bulbs should be noted, cigarette receptacles checked, trash emptied and bags replaced, front stoop swept, banners and signs fixed so they hang straight, etc.
It is very important that the front of house staff has access to cleaning supplies. It may be a revolting job, but often they are the ones called upon to wield a plunger in a toilet and a mop to clean up toilet overflow or vomit. Unfortunately, I have been faced with these types of emergencies far more often than heart attacks and power outages. I mastered the manuever of holding a can of air freshener at my thigh and spritzing as I passed through a crowded lobby by necessity.
Once the audience arrives ushers should be attentive to patrons and not focussed on talking to each other. Those who look lost or confused should be approached and aided. In many cases there isn't enough seating in the lobby and folding chairs need to be brought out for people with mobility difficulties while they await the opening of the theatre.
Once the theatre does open ushers need to be pleasant, attentive and know how to accurately direct people to their seats. There should be a sufficient number of ushers stationed throughout the theatre to aid patrons. (I always found a minimum of 2 ushers per door with and additional 1 per every 100 seats in the theatre to be a pretty good rule of thumb. It provides a little flexibility if some people don't show up.)
Once the show does start, ushers with flashlight should be strategically placed around the theatre and near the doors to aid in the arrival/departure of those needing to use the restrooms. This is one of the most difficult things I have tried to implement because inevitably the usher becomes involved in watching the show even if it is the 80th time they have seen it and miss the fact that someone is stumbling up the aisle and crashing out the doors.
There should also be a sufficient number of ushers in the lobby to help with late seating after the show starts. Before the appropriate interval for seating arrives, they should instruct the patrons about what is going to happen when they enter the theatre. I don't know how many times I have been watching a show when the usher started instructing people after they entered the dark, quiet room.
If there is a particularly large number of people to seat, they should be lined up in reverse seating order (People for row M followed by those for J, G, E, B, A) so that the people can be "dropped off" as the group makes their way forward. Again, seems logical, but I have seldom seen it instituted unless I suggested it. I think it is because the ushers themselves share a perception that the job they are doing doesn't take any thought.
After late seating has been taken care of, ushers in the lobby should be watching for people returning from the restroom so they can get the door for them. Not only is it a sign of good service and attention, but it prevents the door from making too much noise as it closes.
Intermission and the end of the show people are attentive, open and close the doors, etc and then help clean up at the end of the night.
One of the most important tools in Front of House Management is the end of performance report. Copies should be distributed to the administration and maintenance. Often stage management receives a copy as well. This is the way incidents are recorded and the status of the show is communicated to people who weren't present. Often it lists what ushers didn't show up, problems with the physical plant that need to be addressed, time the show and intermission started and ended, audience complaints, medical emergencies, if actors are wandering the lobby during the show, if there are a large number of people consistently arriving late, etc.
All this information helps people make decisions about how general operations and performances need to be run. Does the theatre need to recruit more ushers and train them better? Should the thermostat be moved away from an exterior door? Should alternate directions be provided so that people can avoid traffic congestion?
The front of house area is integral to the success of a performance venue because the response to emergencies and audience concerns rests so heavily upon this area. Providing at least key staff members with the training and information they need to address these concerns is essentially a necessity.
A month or so ago, I noted BoardSource.org as a resource for board related questions such as how to form one and what it means to be a board member. I wanted to revisit it and take a closer look at what it offers.
While portions of the webpage like the Topic Papers are only available to members ($137/yr, $250 for 2 years), there is still plenty of guidance provided in other areas. One of the services they provide are examples of "governance in the news" where they list a news story and then provide a brief commentary on the implications of the story.
The Q&A section is fairly large and briefly covers a wide range of topics. I thought I would summarize some of the contents just to give readers an idea of some of the considerations that go into non-profit board service.
Assessment, Effectiveness, Strategic Planning-These three sections deal with questions about the board assessing its effectiveness as well as how to evaluate the executive staff member.
Board Development and Composition/Structure-These areas deals with mission/value statements, effective board retreats, board size, term length, diverse membership without tokenism and the governance/nominating committee. The composition area also provides statistics about how many minority and female board members there are in the US.
Board Meetings-This is a large area of the website dealing with everything from how to run a meeting, how often to run them, sunshine laws, parlimentary procedure/Robert's Rules of Order, attendance and minute taking.
Compensation-This section deals with the rare case of board member compensation (non-profit board members do not get paid, unlike for-profit members), doing business with board members and IRS sanctions for exploiting non-profit status.
Financial Issues-A very detailed and very important section that deals with audits, finding an auditor, questions a board should ask about finances and about audited procedures, investment policies, endowments, unrelated business income tax, assessing the budget.
Fundraising-Another big, crucial area that covers questions like: "Should board members be required to make an annual contribution" (and how many organizations do require it?), restricted grants, best solicitation methods, donor recognition, what foundations look for in board governance, case statements and fundraising resources.
Legal Issues-Still another important area for boards. Here they deal with conflict of interest, ethics, proxy voting, Director and Officer Insurance, Form 990, lobbying and political action committees, laws governing non-profits, sunshine laws and finding a lawyer and insurance agent.
Nonprofit Sector-This is just a general information area on non-profits. Talks about what they are, the difference between 501 (c) (3), (4) and (6) status, finding college courses in non-profit management, researching financials of non-profit orgs, etc.
Organizational Issues-Basically covers making the decision to become a non-profit and the paperwork and issues to be addressed to implement that plan.
Recruit and Orient- This section deals with deciding what type of people (profession-wise) will give your board depth, questions to ask potential members, information you collect from members, courting new members and whether to have board member contracts.
Role and Responsibility- Very important section, especially for those who have never served on a non-profit board. This area discusses differences between governing and advisory boards, why non-profits need boards, what to do if you don't agree with the board decision, duties of a board chair, board member sabbaticals, disruptive board members and benefits of board service.
There are also sections (names are self-explanatory as to the contents) on Board/Staff relations, Board Chair/CEO relations, Roles of Committees and Canadian Nonprofit resources.
As I mentioned, the answers aren't very detailed, but they do provide guidances as to where to find specific answers. The Q&A section would be valuable in providing a potential board member a fairly thorough overview of what non-profit board service involved.
On occasion I have had some crises of faith regarding whether I belonged working in the performing arts. However, I have never had a day when it seemed events were conspiring to tell me to find another line of work as I did yesterday. June 16 being Bloomsday provides a nice rhyme for the title of this entry. However, if you find James Joyce's writing style to be strange, it might be an apt comparison because the day was rather strange.
I will keep names anonymous and details very general because there are some very nice people working hard to get me a job and I don't want to seem ungrateful for their efforts.
It all started last week when I was offered a job by a gentleman at Organization A. It was a nice offer at what appears to be a very exciting place to work. However, I had an interview set for June 16 with Organization B which really sounded exciting and captured my imagination to some degree. I was sort of torn between putting Org A off until I could interview at Org B and the idea that it might do a disservice to Org B if I interviewed there knowing I had a job offer elsewhere.
I make every attempt to deal fairly openly and honestly with people. I try not to cynically play people off against each other to exploit a situation only for myself. In the end though, being practical and slightly paranoid, I decided I couldn't official count on having the other job until I got it in writing.
It was fortunate that I took this stance because the next person up the hierarchy at Org A called me and offered me the job at significantly less salary. Apparently the person who offered me the job went on vacation without noting the salary I had been offered. Much to the superior's credit, he resolved to personally work on getting me the salary I had been offered.
Meanwhile, I planned my trip to Org B in earnest. I was still intrigued by the opportunity and knew now I was correct in not counting my chickens too early. The trip to Org B was 2.5 hours but I gave myself 3.5 in case of traffic. Worse came to worse, I got there early and wandered around the neighborhood and reviewed my notes for the interview.
About 1.5 into the trip, my car broke down. The really crappy part was that I had taken my car in last week because I heard a sound that implied this would happen. The garage told me I was wrong, the problem was elsewhere and didn't actually look in the place I felt it originated. However, I was right and a squeak turned into a crunch as my wheel bearing fused to the spindle and I went from 65 to 0 pretty quickly. It took me 4 hours to get it towed and fixed.
By that time Org B didn't feel it was worth my coming down and said they would try to reschedule. I don't hold much hope of actually landing the job though. I limped back home, depressed.
Once home I got an email from Org A saying they were sending my appointment before the chief executive for approval. Since I was told the chief executive had to approve the higher salary offer, I found reason for optimism.
Then I got a call in the evening that informed me that the position approval might be delayed slightly as the board had fired the chief executive and it might take the interim replacement a little bit to sort things out.
I have always thought of Fate as a subtle force, but after a day like that, it is difficult not to envision someone really yanking hard on the strings.
Yesterday I addressed a monograph on the value of conferences in the pursuit of developing cultural policy. The authors noted that generally, with the exception of really disorganized groups, meetings of this sort were not terribly valueable. My last entry looked at the barriers to success, today I want to review the solutions the authors suggest.
I should amend my former statement a little--the authors believe that conferences don't contribute to the formation of policy currently. They do suggest ways to remove the aforementioned barriers so that constructive work might result. Among them are:
-"Build and foster policy communities within art and culture. Consider the creation of a convening authority an independent body, or honest broker, that can support special forums (what we are calling “policy thrusts”) to bring together different parts of the cultural sector to engage in focused and deliberate dialogue and to move from strategy and problem identification to consensus building, action plans, common research needs, and coalitions around pressing policy problems."
-"Define problems, set agendas, develop policy alternatives and reform government services and programs. Arts leaders should encourage foundations and governments to create taskforces, working groups, and special commissions to advise and interject in policy conversations at the local, state and federal levels."
In this regard they suggest keeping the focus of the taskforces limited "not simply "the arts in San Diego,” for example, but a topic that can yield practical policy recommendations: for example, youth and creativity; quality of life; spaces for creativity; cultural districts; creative industries; and support for working artists,etc etc.."
-"Improve methods to document policy discussions at annual meetings." This seems to be exactly what Andrew Taylor's band of graduate students have been doing at the National Performing Arts Convention. In fact, the report explicitly suggests using graduate students to act as recorders of "all policy-relevant comments. By identifying these statements, tracking policy concerns and more systematically documenting what is discussed, association staff and the broader membership can better gauge the policy dimensions of a conference session."
-"Offer professional training and development: policy education through workshops." Since many cultural administrators aren't practiced in the process of policy making, the authors suggest workshops that empower people with the tools to do so.
-"Organize policy roundtables" As I mentioned yesterday, one of the research findings of this study was that conference participants felt more was accomplished in informal discussions after a meeting than at the meeting itself. The authors suggest that such post-event gatherings should be organized to encourage discussion by those who can attend.
-"Diversify participants and panelists and publicize and promote cultural policy expert." As mentioned yesterday, the roster of speakers at conferences has become increasingly insular of late. The authors encourage not only inviting government officials, but people from other industries who can provide insight about policy development.
-"Call attention to the policy dimension of meetings...In order to highlight the policy dimension of meetings and to help attendees identify policy-relevant conversations, associations might consider identifying a “policy track” at their annual meetings...A track is simply a set of conference sessions that fit within a general approach or topic area. Many sessions can be cross-listed under more than one track."
-"Conduct formal, in depth evaluations: National service associations should consider employing more ambitious evaluations – similar in scope to the recent pARTicipate2001 assessment in order to trace over a period of time the learning and action that results from a meeting. These evaluations can reveal how participants (from junior- to senior level arts professionals) approach meetings differently and how they take away from these gatherings.
-"Cross-sector initiative. Foundations interested in advancing cultural policy might consider supporting a special initiative to connect cultural policy to more established policy fields and help cultural leaders participate in broader policy discussions in their communities, states or regions."
-"Integrate cultural policy concerns onto the agenda of other policy professionals. There is a wide gap between the professional planning community and the cultural policy community. Planners need to think more integrally about arts and culture, and they need to understand more fully how the arts can serve the goals of community/urban/regional planning."
Some interesting things to ponder. I would certainly be more interested in attending conferences/meetings for policy education if people began to adopt this approach. (This is not to say I don't enjoy attending conferences for the other educational and networking opportunities they offer. I have just been frustrated by a lack of what I perceived to be constructive, practical solutions.)
For all the material I directly quoted from the report, there is still plenty I omitted (specific examples of what the authors were referring to in many cases) so it would probably behoove anyone interested in policy formation to read the whole of the monograph.
Even though I know Andrew Taylor has been in Pittsburgh at the National Performing Arts Convention this past week, I have been checking his blog reguarly. Even though I have seen the same entry that he will be out of town about 5 times now, today I actually followed one of the links. He and about 20 grad students have been attempting to track and report the events of the convention in real time and report back to the convention before it is over.
The link I followed actually took me to the Bolz Center webpage where I noticed he had a link to a report by a group at Princeton University about the value of such conventions and meetings in forming cultural policy. The monograph, "The Measure of Meetings: Forums, Deliberation, and Cultural Policy" finds that with few exceptions, conferences don't help set policy at all.
Because I often find conferences to be fairly useless in this regard, I was interested to see what the exceptions might be and what changes they suggested. Now it should be noted, they were just focussing on the value of conferences to formation of policy and not the value to networking, training or dissemination of new information to attendees.
The monograph is fairly long (106 pages, double spaced) and begins with exploring the elements and influences that contribute to policy formation in other arenas like government. Anyone with a general knowledge of the political process won't be surprised to learn that government policy is often created outside of formal meetings. Likewise, special commissions formed to address a problem are susceptible to shape their findings by political pressure and there is no guarantee that the person/body which formed the panel will actually heed its advice.
They do cite evidence (also not terribly surprising) that face to face meetings are more effective to policy development than just sending written reports to the same people. However, the meetings/interactions have to be on going rather than just one time seminars or conferences in order to build trust and looking relationships between the members. There seems to be less trust in what one hears at this one time events.
The monograph points out a number of impediments to the formation of cultural policy
In the arts, not only is visibility low, but there are also few “focusing events” or crises that demand a policy response. Second, there are few existing indicators,
especially ones that can be counted, that point to potentially serious and urgent problems facing the cultural sector. Sectors like housing, for example, rely on indicators such as new home purchases, rates of home ownership, the number of abandoned properties, and the number of homeless; transportation has statistics on highway fatalities, airline safety, U.S. dependence on foreign oil, and the capacity of public transit systems. In health care there are indicators for the number of uninsured citizens, per capita health expenditures, infant mortality, and the spread of infectious disease, among others. The cultural sector lacks these indicators, especially at the national level. Third, compared to other domains, there are few well-organized stakeholders in the cultural sector that exert consistent pressure on the political stream. Fourth, the cultural sector lacks a major public agency or department, where resources and decision making authority is centralized and where policy activity coalesces. Finally, the cultural policy community is highly fragmented with little agreement on common policy problems or concerns.
Part of the reason why conventions are such poor venues for forming cultural policy is that this is rarely the purpose of the gathering or it is poorly organized if it is.
However, a scan of the field indicates that, compared to other policy domains, strategic policy- focused convenings (task forces, commissions, and study groups) are not a regular part of the arts and culture landscape and remain underutilized policy tools. There are exceptions, some of which we will discuss below. Nevertheless, we argue, that those meetings that are organized around cultural policy issues tend to fall short of many of the criteria important for altering the public agenda or influencing decision makers. Arts meetings usually produce reports with vague and general recommendations that have little direct connection to specific policy actors; they often discuss broad issues, but fail
to define clearly problems that have immediate and recognizable sequences.They typically over represent the arts community and fail to engage effectively other policy areas and leaders from other sectors (they fall into the trap of “preaching to the choir”). Tepper and Hinton 31 Arts meetings rarely take into account the political opportunity structure, nor do they include a political strategy to move findings or recommendations into action. Dissemination and follow- up is often weak and special convenings and commissions in the arts tend to call for additional resources and new programs (“wish lists”) rather than
examine how existing programs and resources might be improved (administrative reform). Finally, these convenings rarely collect new data, nor do they involve a systematic and rigorous investigation of an issue.
In policy making, the paper identifies 10 steps that must be mounted to create good policy: Trends, Strategic Thinking, Concerns and Problem Identification, Policy Alternatives, Windows of Opportunity, Policy Barriers, Consensus Building; Selecting a Solution; Setting Priorities, Action Plan – Assigning Responsibility, Policy Enactment, Policy Implementation, Evaluation and re-design.
The study the authors conducted found most conference participants (73%) focused on the first three steps and very few (27%) focused on any steps beyond that. The authors point out that while this may make it appear that the arts are a "culture of complaint and not activism," most conference enviroments are not designed in a way to facilitate a transition from broad to specific thinking.
A reason why conferences may not be designed to aid in effective policy formation is perceptual. The authors found that people had a "top down" view of policy making beliving that government, national organizations and foundation program officers were responsible for policy formation.
There is also a perception that the big cultural organizations set policy and that studies of cultural institutions only examine and discuss the needs of the large players. The smaller ones feel they have no choice but to follow in their wake if they are to survive because others are setting the standard for what is to be presented and funded. Conferences are seen as a good place to pick up short term strategies and best practices, but not as a forum for long term policy development.
Another obstruction to creation of policy is who is being invited to the conferences:
"[T]he vast majority of all speakers and panelists represent nonprofit organizations and that most of these are from arts-based nonprofits (both presenting and non-presenting organizations)...In fact, government representatives are visibly absent from the programs of the major
presenting arts associations...From our perspective it appears that, associations look to their own backyards when searching for speakers and panelists. In addition, if we look at trends over time (table 8), we find a decrease in the number of representatives from government and in the number of non-arts
related nonprofit speakers...In spite of the frequent rhetoric by cultural
leaders of imploring arts advocates to build bridges and make connections to other sectors and fields, it appears that, at least in terms speakers at the large annual meetings, we are increasingly drawing from within rather than from outside the arts."
Tomorrow I hope to discuss the solutions the monograph suggests for more effective policy creation.
As I was reading the Rand report yesterday, it seemed that the report itself just expounded a bit more upon the summary at the beginning of the document. As a result, I chose to publish my blog entry. However, when I reached the section on future initiatives by State Arts Agencies (SAAs), I realized there was some interesting information to report and so, I continue today.
The Wallace Foundation granted funds to 13 SAAs to support their State Arts Partnerships for Cultural Participation initiative (START).
"By many measures, the successful proposals were quite innovative. Several START agencies proposed to teach themselves the latest audience-development and other participation-building techniques so that they in turn could pass them on to selected local arts organizations. Several also proposed to create new grant categories for demonstration projects to model these techniques. Relatively few of the proposals, however, looked beyond traditional nonprofi t arts providers as their instruments for boosting participation."
The Wallace Foundation brought in Mark H. Moore to speak, a professor from Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, to speak with the SAAs. Moore has focussed a great deal of work "on developing concepts and tools for public sector strategic management." After working with him, the SAAs shifted their focus to examining themselves as public service agencies with participation boosting activities receiving a secondary focus.
In theory, all SAAs serve the public interest. But on examination, they found they were really focussing their efforts to help artists, art lovers and arts organizations. Grants were distributed according to "whether programs 'meet the needs of the field,' not the needs of the various communities around their states."
The SAAs are beginning the planning of new programs no longer tend to fund the same organizations on an annual basis.
"They are eager to develop all sorts of partnerships—be they with other government agencies, non-arts civic institutions, local communities, for-profit and amateur arts groups, etc.—any person, group, or institution with the potential to get more and different kinds of people involved in the arts is a candidate. However, even these START agencies are quite anxious about diverting scarce resources away from artists and arts groups they have long known and respected."
t will be interesting to see how private foundations respond to the change in the way SAAs support arts organizations given the Independent Sector paper I cited in April encourage long term support of non profits.
The Rand report cites an interesting anecdote illustrating the way funding policy is shifting.
"A jazz presenter, recounting his dire financial situation, was pleading for money from the agency. The staffer, who has been very involved with the START initiative, responded, “We don’t give you money because you need it.” Startled, the jazz presenter replied, “You don’t?” “No,” said the staffer. “We give you money because you deliver something specific to the public that the state would like to have happen.” According to the staffer, at some level her agency understood this prior to START, but lacked both the framework and the language for making it clear. Now they are in the midst of figuring out what that “something specific” looks like—in order to explain it to their would-be grantees. Most of the START agencies are doing likewise."
The report notes this sort of approach will probably begin to alienate state arts organizations a little. Even though they may not lobby for SAAs as they once did, arts organizations are still better advocates of them in the political arena than members of the general public. The report also notes that legislators might not be pleased if prominent venues in their districts are denied funding. One of the first priorities they suggest is that SAAs begin to strengthen their political ties. The report also encourages SAAs to work hard to quantify the often hard to measure benefits of the arts on communities.
Ultimately, what the SAAs need to do is go to where the people are and discover what it is the people want so they can serve the public at large better. (How this will jibe with The Artful Manager's recent discussion of the Simple Truth 1 that the general public doesn't really know what they want remains to be seen.)
Thanks to Artsjournal.com, a study of state arts agencies done by the Rand Corporation came to my attention today. State Arts Agencies 1965-2003: Whose Interests to Serve by Julia F. Lowell took a look at how 13 state arts agencies were fulfilling the purpose for which they were created. The report feels that the recent cuts to state arts agencies (SAAs) by state governments may turn out to be more than just a passing thing.
The report is prefaced by a summary of the history of SAAs from 1965 when they were first beginning to be formed. They first came as a way to decentralize the power of the NEA and prevent it from becoming "European-style 'Ministry of Culture'." Many were formed for the sole purpose of getting federal funds rather than from an interest by states to join in the arts funding trend. Among the assumptions of early agencies was that only high arts like ballet, opera, orchestras, etc. should be funded rather than individuals and community groups. As a result, the interests of a small group of arts buffs rather than the public as a whole was served.
There was a revolt against this view as many people felt the views and cultures being presented represented too narrow a portion of what was available and that the interests of too small a group was being recognized. Many states decentralized themselves and local arts agencies were set up to direct money to community interests. A consequence was that:
"The political impact of the changes they introduced was disappointing: Local arts councils received much of the credit for regrants run through the budgets of decentralized agencies, and community-based artists and arts organizations did not turn out to be an effective lobbying force. At the
same time, many of those who believed firmly that preserving and nurturing the high arts should be an arts agency’s first priority began losing their faith in SAAs."
In the 1980s, the decentralization of the 1970s lead to a drop in support of SAAs by the major arts organizations. Many lobbied on their own behalf for funding rather than for support of the SAAs.
The 1990s of course brought close inspection of how public funds were being used to support the arts. SAAs were in the position of trying to convince the public and legislators that the arts were important to people's lives and that SAAs were important to the arts.
Today, supported by grants from the Wallace Foundation, some SAAs are working to refocus themselves to represent the entire population of the state rather than just arts attendees, organizations and individuals artists. The report promises to monitor the strategies and tactics each participating SAA uses to generate monographs in the future.
Some positive movements lately on the job search front kept me from posting yesterday. We will see what develops.
I came across an essay by John Eger titled "The Future of Work in the Creative Age." It sort of added another piece to the puzzle of how to attain Richard Florida's creative communities. In a time where outsourcing fears cause anxiety about one's job future, Eger says the US should focus its efforts on cultivating creativity.
Many, like the Nomura Research Institute, argue that the stage is set for the advance of the "Creative Age," a period in which America should once again thrive and prosper because of our tolerance for dissent, respect for individual enterprise, freedom of expression and recognition that innovation is the driving force for the U.S. economy, not mass production of low value goods and services.
Today, the demand for creativity has outpaced our nation's ability to create enough workers simply to meet our needs. Seven years ago, for example, the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers asked the governor of California to "declare a state of emergency" to help Hollywood find digital artists. There were people aplenty who were computer literate, they claimed, but could not draw. In the New Economy, they argued, such talents are vital to all industries dependent on the marriage of computers and telecommunications.
He goes on to mention a couple schools which are rearranging their cirriculum to integrate an arts focus. He also quotes HP CEO Carly Fiorina as saying soon pools of skilled creatives will replace tax incentives and infrastructure as the elements which entice industry to a locality.
He suggests that divorcing the arts from math and science of the last couple decades has actually been detrimental to America's ability to compete in these areas. He points out that Einstein played violin, Galileo wrote poetry and Samuel Morse painted portraits. They may not have had the time and talent to become virtuosos in these pursuits, but the implication is that they supplemented the quality of the scientific products of these men.
Unfortunately, the subtle influence of arts upon scientific accomplishment and vice versa is one of those areas that resists precise measurement by standardized testing and other empirical measures. Only after a sustained shift in policy are we likely to realize the benefits of a more holistic education and exposure.
My apologies to my readers, my days since my last entry have been rather full with the preparation and execution of the festival. On Thursday at about 4pm, the forecast for Saturday changed from sunny to rain. To avoid the problems of past years, the executive director cancelled the craft portion of the festival and had the craft fair coordinator call all the vendors to tell them not to come. This decision was not popular with many people, including some board members. The real strange thing was, despite the change in the forecast, there was actually a surge in ticket orders on Friday.
The festival coordinator wisely moved some of the tasks to be completed on Friday to Thursday and we spent most of Friday moving sheets of aspenite to staging areas to be used if the grounds got too muddy on Saturday. The executive director also had crushed concrete laid down the length of one of our parking fields. We had done this a couple years ago in another field, but there has been a desire to preserve the green space of that particular field for a few years now. Given that the executive director helped tow 150 cars out last year, I believe he decided the paved lane across the meadow was the lesser evil.
In the end, it did rain, but the mantra of the day was "This isn't as bad as last year." It was rather muddy, but because of the preparations and lower volume of rain, only three cars actually had to be towed out. (Other cars got stuck, but they extracted themselves before the tow vehicle could arrive.)
The fact we had less rain didn't keep the lighting and sound trucks from becoming embedded in the ground. Last year nearly everyone was freed by 10:30 pm, but mysteriously this time I was up until 1:30 am getting the two equipment trucks pulled out. (My contribution actually consisted of shivering in the drizzle while the tow truck crew winched trucks forward, pulled ahead, winched them along a bit more, pulled ahead, etc. However, there had to be a representative of the organization on hand until the grounds were vacated.)
Sunday morning I had to run to Philadelphia to pick up performers at their hotel and transport them to the train station. This probably wouldn't have been necessary in most cases except they were hauling equipment and instruments which a taxi wouldn't have been able to accomodate. Then it was back to the festival grounds to start the clean up. As usual, few of the volunteers who signed up to help clean up showed up. We seldom give festival admission to people who only sign up for the day after so we weren't cheated out of tickets.
The day was long and hard, but fortunately this year I am not a full time employee so I got to go home at the end of the day when my contract was up. The full time coordinator and her assistant will be tackling the remaining portion of the clean up over the course of the week. Most of the heavy work was completed yesterday so they will be faced with tedious chores like putting signs and tables back to where they are usually stored.
I, on the other hand, am returning to my job search and will go back to writing more from a research point of view. As I suspected, if any arts organization tries to have a person blog about their experiences during the process of creating a work, the product might be intermittantly produced due to the demands of the job exhausting the writer.
All in all of course, an enjoyable experience.
So with the 5 day forecast out today, ticket sales for the festival started to pick up. I had already been consulting Accuweather, Weather Underground and Weather Channel websites for the last couple days to see what the festival weather would be like.
Because it rained rather extensively last year, we really need good weather this year to maintain people's faith in the event. Even if it does rain and the rain insurance helps defray the losses, if the weather is lovely next year and no one buys tickets because they have been disappointed two years in a row, there is nothing to help stave off losses. So far Thursday through Saturday looks beautiful. Sunday looks a little iffy so we are praying the weather system doesn't speed up any.
Because Appel Farm's residential arts and music summer camp starts 2 weeks after the festival ends, we will be rushing to clean up the grounds on Sunday. It won't be too productive if it does rain or have thunderstorms that day. Though the worst thing to have happen is to have a rainy festival day and then a rainy clean up day. It sort of adds insult to injury. You are miserable the day of the event and then miserable cleaning it all up.
I am rather proud of the festival coordinator this year. Not only has she been good about planning the event, she has started dreaming about the festival and waking up in the middle of the night to make notes to remember things. I would be worried if this wasn't happening to her. It would be a sign she didn't really "get" the scope of what she was about to create.
In years past I would actually wake up in the middle of the night and call my office voice mail with notes for the next day. Unfortunately, since I didn't have to actually get up and turn the light on, I would be in a half daze while I dictated notes over the phone and consequently had to replay the messages the next day to figure out what the heck I was mumbling.
Most of today was spent handling rather boring, picayune but necessary details of the festival. I stuffed all sorts of support information into volunteer packets so they would know how to do their jobs better. I moved tents and other equipment to staging areas so that the Saturday morning set up crew will have a straightforward job.
Tomorrow is the big shopping day. While we have someone to cater the volunteer and performer meals, there are quite a number of items that performers request that it would cost too much to have the caterer provide. Tomorrow we will be running to a food warehouse and grocery store to pick up cases of water, soda, beer, milk, breakfast foods, cookies, etc, etc, etc.
We actually had the road manager of one of our performers call today because she was concerned about how closely we were paying attention to the hospitality rider she provided. This is a valid concern because often festivals skimp on such details and treat the performers rather poorly. While we don't go overboard to ingratiate ourselves to performers, we do pay attention to detail. We have actually had bands announce from the stage that they just had the best meal they had ever eaten at a festival.
We make sure we take care of performers because we are a small festival and there isn't the prestige associated with playing here as there might be at other festivals where artists will put up with the poor treatment just for the exposure. Taking care of the performers helps us attract bigger and better artists in subsequent years because word gets around that we offer a good experience and people are more apt to say yes.
In any case, we had the woman who heads up the hospitality area call the road manager to discuss any concerns she might have. When our coordinator said she had received the hospitality rider two weeks ago and had been supplied with the shopping list I am going to use tomorrow and that the list specifically noted which items were for the artist's personal use, the road manager was apparently really relieved.
To some degree it is puzzling to me that performers have such negative experiences in their travels. The type of treatment we offer is not difficult to implement. If it wasn't for the praise we receive, I would generally assume we are sort of bumbling along at about average. I guess it is a matter of being in the habit of being attentive that makes it so easy to offer good service.