|
| |
|
| |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Making Exact Change |
Making Exact Change
Part Four: Recommendations Recommendations The following recommendations are provided to inform and guide Art in the Public Interest as it continues its work in support of the community arts field. It is also hoped that these suggestions will respectfully challenge some assumptions about the how community-based creative inquiry can be encouraged and provoke further inquiry. Consequently, all that follows does not necessarily suggest direct action by API. Some recommendations are for joint action or advocacy with appropriate partners, while others propose facilitation, and in some cases, further study. Specifically, the first section’s recommendations address the next steps for continued research. The second section deals specifically with how API might contribute to the further development of the country’s community-art support system. The last section addresses issues relevant to the funding community. It is clear to us that the values and instincts that have guided API’s efforts to date have served the field well. Any and all suggestions related to API’s programs should be considered with this in mind. Flexibility, accessibility, responsiveness and, most important, respect are the principal hallmarks of API’s current efforts. It is our hope that the following recommendations will help API perpetuate these core qualities as it responds creatively to new opportunities.
1. Next Steps for Making Exact Change Recommendation 1.1 Expand the study sample to test Making Exact Change findings and methodology. The ten programs reviewed in the study are a small sample of a large and growing field. In response to our initial outreach for the project, more than 100 different programs were recommended as possible research subjects. We believe this is just the tip of the iceberg. Given this, we recommend expanding the study cohort by another 20 programs. This larger sample would allow us to:
Recommendation 1.2 Enlist the field to help expand the library of case studies. As was indicated previously, Making Exact Change has only scratched the surface of potential study sites. Given the potential lack of funds for such an effort, API might consider other methods for growing this section of the CAN digital library. Here are a few:
Recommendation 1.3 Apply in-depth narrative research methods to a smaller sample to deepen the findings. Given the importance of context in the community art field, we recommend a third phase of study. We suggest using narrative research protocols pioneered by Harvard sociologist Sara Laurence Lightfoot in her book “The Good High School” to study five to seven of the 30 case studies in more depth. This process, which is often referred to as “portraiture,” is a disciplined process of description, interpretation, analysis and synthesis. The resulting program portraits would provide a contextual shape for the data developed in the shorter case studies. We feel this approach will increase the relevance and accessibility of the Making Exact Change research.
Recommendation 1.4 Use further research to address more nuanced questions about the field. The first phase of this study takes a relatively quick look at ten diverse programs. As such, it is more descriptive than it is analytical. If the additional research recommended above is undertaken it will allow more complex contextual questions to be addressed. Here are a few that might be considered.
Recommendation 1.5 Expand the Making Exact Change model to include hybrid arts/social-science approaches to evaluation, documentation and research. The research methodology use for this study should be refined and expanded. In future investigations multiple data-collection tools should be employed, bringing together both the quantitative with the qualitative. This could include: surveys, structured interviews, careful textual analysis of documents and interview data, participant observation, interpretative observation by journalists or other artists, comparative data from other sources and research, case studies and focus groups. The results from one source can then be checked against the results from others, allowing evaluators to approach the standards of validity and reliability necessary to good social science. While quantitative measures provide an assurance that one’s conclusions are broadly accurate, qualitative sources provide the deep meaning — the heart — of the matter.
2. API and Improving the Community Arts Infrastructure The recommendations in this section are made in response to some of the broader community-arts infrastructure issues identified in this study. We would advise API to address the recommendations in this section systematically, emphasizing partnerships or alliances whenever possible. Recommendation 2.1 API should continue its key leadership role for the community-arts sector in the U.S. API’s track record justifies its continued development as a prime community-arts learning center. API’s service-oriented philosophy and long-term approach is very compatible with effective community-arts practice. Based on the conversations conducted for this study, it is clear that the organization has a good reputation in the community arts sector as an honest broker and supporter in the field. This provides a good foundation for any of the new initiatives discussed in the recommendations that follow. I also feel it would be worthwhile to continue convening the kind of working group that gave impetus to this study. We would encourage broadening this group to include representatives from the human-service and community-development sectors. The regular interaction of such groups will precipitate needed cross-sector discussions and debate.
Recommendation 2.2 Continue to develop CAN as a meeting place and learning center. There is a strong interest throughout the community-arts field for quality information and learning opportunities. The learning resources and materials that comprise the CAN Web site respond well to this need. Hopefully, the publication of the case studies in this study will add to the site’s usefulness. As API continues to build its digital library, we would encourage further development of curricular units and/or syllabi that could be used for training. For example: articles and case studies that describe particularly effective community partnerships or innovative funding strategies could be linked or digitally packaged for use in a class or workshop. Doing this would allow CAN to function as both a traditional library and serve the learning and mentoring needs of the broader field.
Recommendation 2.3 Consider a CAN fellows program. The Community Arts Network has rapidly evolved to become the journal of record for the community-arts field in the U.S. Over the years, CAN has developed a stable of writers and researchers who have provided a broad and balanced view of the emerging community-arts field. We encourage CAN to formalize some of these relationships as research fellowships. Using the model employed by Carnegie Mellon’s Studio for Creative Inquiry, these fellows would provide articles for publication and the peer review of articles. Like Mellon’s “Studio,” their only “compensation” would be the imprimatur of their CAN association, which should increase with time. This, in turn, should improve the rigor and consistency of discourse and debate in the field.
Recommendation 2.4 Use CAN to further develop the foundation for a community-arts support network. We view the ongoing building of a core network of community-arts fellows, practitioners and supporters as essential to the development and continuity of the field. The originating network would likely be CAN fellows and their cross-sector partners. Over time, this could evolve into an extended network of community-arts practitioners, subject-matter experts and new and veteran learners with widely varying levels of expertise. The network would offer a variety of ways of providing links and referrals. These might range from a directory of case studies and practitioners, to seminars and symposia on specific topics related to the field, to internships, apprenticeships and mentorships, and one-on-one technical assistance. This network would not only provide access to practical resources, but give the field a strong sense of identity as a group that is committed to high standards and mutual support.
Recommendation 2.5 Develop an online arts-based community-development presentation series. The series should be seen as an opportunity for both learning and network building. The format should provide opportunities to hear about exemplary programs and threshold issues relevant to the field, as well as active contribution and interaction by participants. One approach might be to commission exemplary practitioners to create and deliver online presentations on their work or on a specific issue. Presenters could be asked to design a program that both instructs the field and promotes the development of the CAN network. We would recommend starting with a pilot one-year series with a minimum of one formal event every other month.
Recommendation 2.6 Educate funders about the complex ecology of community-arts development. Many in the community-arts sector feel misunderstood. Some point to funders who do not appreciate the complex web of interdependent relationships and resources they depend upon. Others feel that the field suffers from a negative stereotype. Another common perception is that the field suffers from its own internal blindness and needs to learn more about itself before it can seek to improve its status and health. Within the field, there is a great awareness of the network of artists, arts organizations, local arts agencies, health and wellness providers, government agencies, funders and the public that make up this ecology. Nevertheless, neither the geography nor the condition of this creative system has been clearly represented to funders, the arts community or the general public. Because of this, some in the community-arts field feel that available support does not respond to their needs or values. Given the meager resources available to community artists, it is incumbent on the field to make sure that its investor partners are well informed. We encourage API to explore ways to help increase funder awareness about the complexity, diversity and effectiveness of the community-arts field. The data gathered through this study and similar efforts could be used to illustrate the complex and fragile community-arts ecology. Increased awareness of this system among funders and policy makers could help to improve the creativity and efficiency of the country’s community-arts support system.
3. Issues and Opportunities Relevant to the Funding Community Recommendation 3.1 Consider investment-oriented funding strategies that can respond directly to specific community ideas, needs, situations and opportunities. According to our sample, traditional, directive grant making and community arts programs do not work well together. The problem, they say, is that some funders view the shifting dynamics inherent to community-based work a liability. Those interested in replicable models also find themselves at odds with the kinds of community-specific approaches identified in this study. We feel these apparent incompatibilities present a unique opportunity for funders to question the assumptions that have informed traditional approaches to community-arts funding and develop a more flexible, investment-oriented support strategy. We encourage funders to respond to this situation by developing support programs and services based on a venture-capital, community-development investment model. This approach would request proposals for projects that address specific arts-based community-development investment goals and objectives. This differs from the traditional grant approach in that it is driven by the field. The core assumption here is that the most productive ideas and opportunities will come from community-arts partnerships in the field, not grant guidelines. These investment goals and objectives could include: 1. Artistic excellence
With this type of program orientation, the specific design or methodology employed by applicants to achieve these objectives would not be mandated or directed. The onus, then, would be on the applicant to articulate how the proposed investment would produce one or more of the investment program’s desired outcomes. The object here would be to provide broadly defined program guidelines and categories that: 1. Allow the broadest range of artists and organizations to apply Related Strategies:
Recommendation 3.2 Develop an investment regimen that is timely, adaptive, flexible and developmental. Our survey of artists and arts organizations has shown that the community-arts environment is modest in capacity and experience. Given this, we feel funders should provide maximum flexibility to respond creatively to unanticipated opportunities, needs and ideas. There are a number of ways this can be achieved. One is to create a selection process that allows for a very broad and creative range of responses to proposals. This approach allows panelists or staff the leeway to make “extraordinary” recommendations regarding the amount and duration of resource allocation. Another strategy is to approach some recipients of grants and/or services as developmental partners rather than grantees. These approaches give funders and their investment partners (grantees) an opportunity to work more closely together, over time, as projects evolve and change. Another developmental option is to produce requests for proposals (RFPs) for innovative approaches to specific issues, opportunities or ideas related to the development and delivery of arts-based community development. The RFP option combines many of the program characteristics described in Recommendation 3.1 with the developmental strategies discussed here. One other approach to increasing programmatic flexibility and adaptability is the sudden-opportunity/quick-turnaround funding strategy described in Recommendation 3.3.
Recommendation 3.3 Make both sudden-opportunity/quick-turnaround capacity and long-term investment a key element of any new funding strategy. One of the most consistent concerns articulated by our interviewees is the long lead-time inherent in most grant programs. Based on this feedback, it is clear that many short-term opportunities and/or critical needs are going unmet because of a lack of quick-response capacity by funders or service providers. We anticipate that this need/demand for quick-turnaround resources will only increase as technology and the growing community of entrepreneurial administrators make their presence felt in the arts and health and wellness fields. In response, we recommend that quick-response funding be considered an essential component of any community-arts support program. We define quick response as a completed request and award sequence of four to six weeks. We would advise a very simple application and decision process, vetted by a small number of readers and staff representing both the arts and community-development sectors. We would also encourage giving the program the power to both solicit and initiate applications to this fund. The criteria should be broad and flexible, but have as its primary focus investment opportunities that 1) fulfill one or more community-arts investment objectives and 2) could not be addressed through normal grant or service-program timelines. Another common concern of the field was the lack of sustained support, particularly for the development of infrastructure needs, such as program design, training, evaluation and long-term collaborative arts-based health and wellness endeavors. We would recommend the development of guidelines that invite and encourage requests for support for such sustained efforts. We also recommend giving staff and peer-review panelists “permission” to both identify and recommend support for large multiyear projects that offer significant and unique opportunities for artistic and/or infrastructure development.
Recommendation 3.4 Provide funding for evaluation, documentation and research as an integral element of any arts-based community-development investment strategy. We recommend that funded programs both require and provide support[1] for evaluation. Technical assistance in evaluation design and implementation would also be helpful. In our view, effective evaluations of community-arts programming should embody the following principles:
[Next: Appendix A: Request for Study Subjects] [Table of Contents] Notes 1. The W. K. Kellogg Foundation has published a useful guide to evaluation in non-profits. They recommend that, while the cost of an evaluation is greatly variable depending on its scope and purposes, a useful rule of thumb is that the cost of evaluation should be between seven and ten percent of the project budget. Evaluation research in previously undocumented areas will need to use a higher percent. |
|
|
|||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
|
||||||||
