I have to admit that I have re-written this blog over a number of times in, what feels like, a futile attempt at identifying the best way to share all of the learnings that our team has gathered over the course of the last year. Beyond sharing what we’ve learned, I want to help you all understand how it is influencing where we are headed in regards to the annual funding ArtPlace provides. Some of you may have read my last post that announced a shift from a September open call to January of 2016. If you missed that post, you can read it here, and then come back to this post to learn more about what to expect next.
After my first year with ArtPlace I had the privilege of launching a six-month learning process with my colleagues. This process began in March of 2015 on the heels of my completing site visits across 26 states and the District of Columbia; 14 of which I was visiting for the first time in my life. During these visits I began to notice a pattern of, otherwise well-intentioned, planning and development projects inadvertently exacerbating existing land appropriation, resource extraction, poverty, and immigration issues for marginalized communities.
During these visits I began to notice a pattern of, otherwise well-intentioned, planning and development projects inadvertently exacerbating existing land appropriation, resource extraction, poverty, and immigration issues for marginalized communities.
We convened a collection of community leaders from across the country over two days to learn about ArtPlace’s origins and institutional goals; and then, asked them to advise us on how we might work differently as a philanthropic partner to communities. I entered this dialogue with an additional interest of frankly discussing my frustration with how the system of philanthropy often incentivizes dishonest and transactional relationships. These relationships are often onerous for the grantee and unpleasant for the foundation.
Philanthropy’s frameworks and approaches (in my experience) far too often lead to conversations about how far a mission can be stretched to meet the priorities of a grant program rather than focusing on how to build organic and reinforcing relationships. I think that it is these unpleasant conversations that ultimately result in many of the frustrations my colleagues in the field of arts and culture grantmaking express about being asked for money; when truly, being asked for money is part of our job! I looked forward to the advice these community leaders could give us on how ArtPlace could do things differently.
Participants unearthed one (among many others) significant opportunity for ArtPlace’s work. These leaders reminded us of the historic psychological (and emotional) impressions left by the system of philanthropy on people in the field. These leaders reminded us that carefully crafted grant language is insufficient to communicate what we [ArtPlace] are trying to achieve and how we hope to get there.
This is unfortunately the case because, historically, many philanthropic programs have said they are ‘open to anyone and everyone’, while (in some cases) the outcomes of those grantmaking programs have consistently provided funding to one type/kind of organization. For example, a grant program that supports arts and culture programming for marginalized communities but their grants only go to large organizations whose programs are solely based in the Western European canon. Or, a grant program designed to fund American art that has never supported a Native American artist. Over time, this has caused many communities to not apply because they read the invitation as disingenuous. It became clear that ArtPlace had to be vigilant in our outreach and relationship building to ensure we didn’t follow the same pattern.
Given the pace of our work at ArtPlace and our relatively small staff (a total of nine employees with only two people working on the national grants program) I wasn’t able to digest much of the complexity in this nuanced conversation until several months later. This has led me to continue to unpack the feedback we received and stretch my own thinking on how we could be better partners.
Five weeks later, ArtPlace hosted its 4th annual creative placemaking summit in Philadelphia. At the summit I was fortunate enough to share the stage with Susan Tate in whose East 9 Street project ArtPlace was able to invest in Lawrence, KS. The session was titled Shift Happens (the G rated version of my preferred title Sh*t Happens). During this session we discussed the messiness of project based work, especially in the world of creative placemaking. Our conversation shed light on some incredible hardships, including personal and public attacks to our partner’s character, and the intentions of her work. It was important for us to “air the (proverbial) dirty laundry” with the ArtPlace “family” present at the summit so that we could signal that our [ArtPlace’s] desire was to be a partner and not “policeman”. Susan expressed her panic at the idea of sharing these challenges with ArtPlace initially and how she thought she might lose her grant as a result of the bad press and shifts that she and her team needed to make. Both ArtPlace and the project in Lawrence, KS were strengthened by the ability to speak openly about the challenges of this work.
This designed moment of very public honesty led to an overwhelming response from our grantees. Dozens began to request a time to speak person-to-person, rather than through a written report, to share the challenges they were facing in their project. The simple act of hosting this plenary at our summit was groundbreaking for people. When we sanctioned the truth, everyone wanted more of it. In the weeks that followed, in meeting after meeting, our grantees shared stories of fear, panic, uncertainty, and embarrassment. I found these stories simultaneously frustrating and rewarding because it became clear to me that the way we were behaving as a funder was beginning to shift the kinds of relationships we could have with grantees. I began to see the tremendous benefit of these transformational relationships, rather than transactional ones, and my hope is that the quality of their place-based work becomes stronger as well.
This series of events led to a succession of internal dialogues at ArtPlace about how else we could shift our behavior and our messaging so that we are not seen by applicants, partners, and grantees as the expert simply because we are distributing resources. We want to demonstrate that our goal is to work with projects as a steward and thought partner.
This series of events led to a succession of internal dialogues at ArtPlace about how else we could shift our behavior and our messaging so that we are not seen by applicants, partners, and grantees as the expert simply because we are distributing resources. We want to demonstrate that our goal is to work with projects as a steward and thought partner.
In the year to come, as our colleagues in the March convening requested, we’ll be piloting some tactics to help achieve this goal and make sure we run a better program for you! We are starting by evaluating our language and how we might be able to strip it of any traditional ‘grant speak’. You know, the kind of language that makes sense to 10% of the members of the Council on Foundations and likely doesn’t make sense to the rest of the world.
What this means to us, is that we won’t be doing an open call for LOIs (Letters of Interest). Instead we will distribute an open call for projects. We are exploring new designs for the traditional notion of reporting to capitalize on opportunities for sharing project documentation and learning. We’ll also be exploring tactics to shift power dynamics and increase shared accountability. Moving forward we will be using project agreements, in place of grant agreements, and allowing projects to identify ways that ArtPlace can be of support beyond cutting a check.
Moving forward we will be using project agreements, in place of grant agreements, and allowing projects to identify ways that ArtPlace can be of support beyond cutting a check.
ArtPlace sees partnerships as paramount to the success of any place-based project, and we will be implementing a partnership verification system. This system has been designed so that partners that are listed on an application can express their understanding of a project, and their role within it, in their own words.
And finally, we want to find ways to reduce the amount of work required when we are engaged together. For instance, we are doing away with standard grant periods because these are not useful to projects happening in different places, contexts, and on different timelines. As a result, we’ll be allowing applicants to select the length of their grant period (from six months to three and a half years) as it corresponds to the needs of their project and community. We’ll also be allowing applicants to select their own documentation and learning deadlines so that they are sharing information with us when it is most relevant during their project timeline.
These are just some of the changes we hope to test and model in 2016 as we work to strengthen our practice in years to come. As a reminder before the holidays, if you haven’t done so already, sign up for our mailing list in the top-right corner of our website to be sure you receive the new application materials when they are released in early January.