SLIDE 1
Shah ACLS Public Fellow Policy & Evaluation
SFAC GRANTS DATA & COMMUNITY FEEDBACK
SLIDE 2 Purpose: to assess the grant-making of the San Francisco Arts Commission within the context of the Strategic Plan Research Questions
- What has been SFAC’s funding pattern in the past?
- Study of SFAC grants data from 1995-2014
- What are promising practices in the field of grant making?
- Review of secondary literature on promising practices in grant-making
- What is the local context of SFAC grants?
- Focus group with prospective and former grantees, as well as experts in
the field
RESEARCH FRAMEWORK
SLIDE 3
FINDINGS ORGANIZATIONS 1995-2014 (EXCLUDING CULTURAL CENTER FUND GRANTS)
SLIDE 4
DISTRIBUTION OF ORGANIZATIONAL GRANTS BY CATEGORY: 1994-2014
SLIDE 5
BREADTH VS. DEPTH
SLIDE 6
14 GRANTEES WITH HIGHEST INVESTMENT 1995-2014
SLIDE 7
FINDINGS INDIVIDUAL ARTISTS 1995-2014
SLIDE 8
FINDINGS CULTURAL CENTERS 2004- 2014
SLIDE 9
COMMUNITY FOCUS – ORGANIZATIONS 2004- 2014
(EXCLUDING CULTURAL CENTER FUND GRANTS)
SLIDE 10
COMMUNITY FOCUS – INDIVIDUAL ARTISTS
2004-2014
SLIDE 11
COMMUNITY FOCUS – CULTURAL CENTER
2004-2014
SLIDE 12
COMMUNITY FOCUS – SFAC GRANTS
2004-2014
SLIDE 13 PROMISING PRACTICES IN GRANT MAKING
Grantee Centered Grantmaking
Strategic Philanthropy
Streamlining & Standardization
Self Assessment & Mutual Learning
SLIDE 14 Commitment to cultural equity
- SFAC grants perceived as equalizer in the San
Francisco arts ecosystem
- Public panel fosters transparency
- Diversity of panelists
Staff’s commitment to capacity building
- Easy access to staff for questions
FOCUS GROUPS FEEDBACK: STRENGTHS
SLIDE 15 Challenges with SFAC grants
- Long, difficult, time consuming, costly application
- Discrepancies between scoring criteria and
application questions
- Inherent subjectivity of panel process
- Lack of targeted outreach
- Individual artists: questions in application fail to
reflect artists’ work processes
- Native community: broad definition of Native
Ongoing critical issues
- Housing, space, and displacement
- Lack of adequate funding for the arts in the city
- SFAC not fulfilling its function as convener and
networker for grantees
FOCUS GROUPS FEEDBACK: CHALLENGES
SLIDE 16 Pros
- Counters underpayment in the non-profit sector
- Promotes sustainability
- Promotes stability for the field
- Promotes planning for long-term and on-going programs
leading to real changes and outcomes
- Allows for flexibility in programming and responding
to changes
Cons
- Possible concentration in funding
- Higher competition rate
- Less access for new and experimental programs
- Less access for small organization due to capacity
FOCUS GROUPS FEEDBACK: MULTI-YEAR, UNRESTRICTED SUPPORT
SLIDE 17 Application
- Streamlined and online application
- Increased capacity of panelists
Technical assistance
- Targeted technical support
- Equitable access to information and technical
assistance
- Additional support for emerging individual artists
and small organizations
Needs in the arts ecosystem
- A comprehensive arts agenda for the city
- Analysis of the arts economic impact in the city
- Access to space
FOCUS GROUPS FEEDBACK: ADDITIONAL SUPPORT NEEDED
SLIDE 18 Continued focus on underserved communities Continued open-application policy Multi-year, unrestricted operation support for anchor
- rganizations upon further analysis of the local arts
ecosystem Project support for organizations and individual artists Rightsizing and streamlining the application Online grant management system Annual evaluation of outcomes
RESEARCHER’S RECOMMENDATIONS
SLIDE 19 Barbara Mumby Senior Program Officer
TH THE F FUT UTURE O URE OF F SF SFAC GR GRAN ANTS
“EQUITY IS THE PROCESS; EQUALITY IS THE OUTCOME.”
SLIDE 20 Main tain the original gran t categories Con tinue to support un derserved com m un ities Preserve tran sparen cy through a public process
RE RE-AFFIR IRM INTENT O OF C CULTURAL E L EQUIT ITY LEGIS ISLA LATION
Image courtesy of Cuba Caribe Festival.
SLIDE 21
“Right-size” the application Clearer align m en t of application question s to scorin g criteria Stan dardized eligibility criteria In troduce an on lin e gran ts m an agem en t system Techn ical assistan ce workshops
INCREASE EASE AND ACCESSIBILITY
SLIDE 22 Gran tee an d com m un ity focused approach Cohort learn in g opportun ities Peer m en toring opportun ities Learn in g In stitutes an d On goin g support an d feedback from SFAC staff
DEEPEN SUPPORT AND PARTNERSHIPS
Image courtesy of Nā Lei Hulu I Ka Wēkiu.
SLIDE 23 Stronger evaluation collection and analysis Annual review of
Ongoing com m unity engagem ent
RESULTS DRIVEN
Image courtesy of Queer Rebels with Indira Allegra.
SLIDE 24 New gu id elin es cr eat ed Ma y Gu id elin es p r esen t ed t o CAEG Com m it t ee J u n e Tech n ica l a ssist a n ce wor ksh op s J u ly - Sep t Fir st r ou n d of ap p licat ion s d u e Oct ober Pan el r eview Nov – J an Fu n d in g r ecom m en d a t ion s t o CAEG Com m it t ee Feb 20 16 Fin al fu n d in g r ecom m en d a t ion s t o fu ll Com m ission Mar ch 20 16 Gr an t win d ow begin s Ma y 20 16
TIMELINE
SLIDE 25
J udy Nem zoff, Com m un ity In vestm en ts Director Barbara Mum by, Sen ior Program Officer Robyn n Takayam a, Program Officer Liz Ozol, Program Officer Weston Teruya, Program Associate Cristal Fiel, Program Associate Alex Tan , Program Associate
SFAC GRANTS STAFF
SLIDE 26
