Clear all

17 results found

reorder grid_view

Public Funding for Art: Chicago Compared with 12 Peer Regions

June 5, 2014

Supported in part by Arts Alliance Illinois, and with the cooperation of several local arts agencies, including Chicago's Department of Cultural Affairs and Special events, and of the National Assembly of State Arts Agencies.This study compares the direct public dollars received by organizations and artists in Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Cleveland, Columbus, Denver, Houston, Miami, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Portland (OR), San Diego, and San Francisco from 2002-2012.Often, studies of public funding for the arts look at appropriations made on the national and state levels and estimates of local expenditures, but this report delves more deeply using grant-level data to examine the dollars received by organizations and artists resident in each city or region.Key findings:In 2012, Chicago arts organizations received $7.3 million in public dollars via competitive grants from local, state, and national public arts agencies combined. Only three of the 13 regions studied received more total dollars in 2012.Though Chicago arts organizations receive among the greatest amounts of public funding in total, a relatively small portion comes from the city's Department of Cultural Affairs and Special Events. Of the competitive arts grants dollars received in Chicago in 2012, 59% came from the Illinois Arts Council, 24% from the National Endowment for the Arts, and 17% from the city's Department of Cultural Affairs and Special Events. For most cities/regions in our study, excluding Chicago, the majority of public grant dollars received by not-for-profits in the area for arts programming came from their local arts agency in 2012. For example, in 2012, San Diego received 93% of its public funding from the local level, 2% from the state level, and 4% from the federal level.DCASE's funding levels have been among the lowest of the 13 cities/regions studied on both a per capita basis, and in terms of total dollars, over the past decade (2002-2012). In 2012, Chicago's Department of Cultural Affairs and Special Events awarded $1.2 million in grants, which is $0.44 per capita. Of the 13 local agencies analyzed, only Phoenix, Boston, and Baltimore spent less in total dollar or per capita terms in 2012.Over the past decade, DCASE annually awarded among the highest total number of grants compared with other regions' local agencies. In 2012, DCASE awarded 520 grants in total -- 305 to organizations and 215 to individuals. In 2012, it awarded competitive grants to approximately 31% of the arts and cultural organizations in the city.Aside from competitive grants, five of the 13 cities/metro regions included in this study provide support to select arts and cultural organizations through line-items, which serve as significant sources of general operating funds.

The Retention of Chicago's Arts Students in Comparative Perspective

May 28, 2014

Highlights:* 58 percent of Chicago arts-school alumni took up residence in the city within 5 years of the date of their last attendance. Of the regions compared in this report, only New York City has a greater portion of its arts-school alumni taking up residence in the city within 5 years, at 66 percent.* 51 percent of Chicago arts-school alumni were out-of-state applicants who came to Chicago and were still living in the city within five years of their last date of attendance. This is the second highest portion of out-of-state applicants taking up residence in the city of their alma mater. New York City's rate was highest at 54 percent.* Of arts-school alumni who searched for work, 38 percent of those attending school in Chicago obtained work prior to leaving their institution; 85 percent obtained work within a year. Alumni from other regions had similar experiences.*50 percent of Chicago's alumni reported that their first job or work experience was "closely related" to their arts-school training. However, alumni from institutions in Los Angeles County, Cleveland/Columbus and New York City reported higher rates of their first work experience being closely related to their arts training.

Measuring Chicago's (Artistically) Creative Economy

May 7, 2014

This study measures the creative industries and workers of Chicago and eight peer cities. It is meant to provide an objective benchmark for Chicago as it undertakes the goals articulated in the Chicago Cultural Plan 2012 of attracting and retaining creative professionals and measuring the size and strength of the cultural sector. Quick facts:Creative workers, a group which includes professionals such as scientists and programmers as well as artists, make up almost 21% of Chicago's civilian labor force, which approximates the portion of creative workers in the US labor force.However, if one looks at artists specifically, Chicago rises above the national baseline: the portion of Chicago's labor force made up of artists is 1.6 times that of the US.An estimated 63,008 artists work in Chicago. Designers represent the largest share of the artist workforce in Chicago, at 36.3 percent.Fifty-seven percent of Chicago's artist labor force is employed in the for-profit sector. Among the cities studied, only Houston and Philadelphia employ barely larger proportions of their artist labor force in the for-profit sector.Chicago's artist workforce is less diverse than its total population in terms of race and ethnicity. Seventy-four percent of Chicago's artist workforce is White (non-Hispanic), compared with a total population that is 32 percent White (non-Hispanic).Among Chicago artists, writers/authors and architects are most highly concentrated compared to the U.S. as a whole. Chicago also has higher concentrations of designers, musicians, photographers, actors, and dancers compared to the national baseline.

Campus Art Museums in the 21st Century: A Conversation

October 31, 2012

In the summer of 2012, the authors of this study brought together a group of campus art museum directors and outside experts to 'think out loud' about the changes already occurring at campus museums and where new opportunities and roles may be emerging. We hope the resulting paper will further the field's larger, continuing exploration of its roles and potentials through dialogue, research, and experimentation -- an exploration that contributes to the continued healthy evolution of campus art museum practice.

The Art Institute of Chicago and the Decision to Start Building

June 25, 2012

This case was prepared for a class discussion rather than to demonstrate either effective or ineffective handling of an administrative situation, and is based on interviews with 12 current and former members of the staff and board of the Art Institute of Chicago, as well as financial documents and the public record. The authors would like to thank all of the people who graciously agreed to be interviewed.

AT&T Performing Arts Center: Fundraising and Uncertainty

June 25, 2012

This case was prepared for a class discussion rather than to demonstrate either effective or ineffective handling of an administrative situation, and is based on interviews with 14 present and former volunteer board members, senior staff, and community leaders, as well as press coverage, annual reports, and internal documents. The authors are deeply grateful to their interviewees for their hospitality and collaboration.

Can Roanoke, Virginia, Become the Next Bilbao? Taubman Museum of Art

June 25, 2012

In November 2008, after a $68 million project to build a new museum building in Roanoke was complete, the Taubman Museum of Art reopened. The $15 million needed to fund the new building was still to be raised, and by the end of the 2008 fiscal year (FY) in July, $14.4 million had been borrowed. Before the move, the museum was provided with its space free of any rental, maintenance, security, custodial, and utility fees by a local operating foundation at its Center in the Square. After the move, the costs of staffing and maintaining the facility far exceeded estimates, while the revenues proved far below expectations. In the first year, the museum's operating budget before depreciation was $5.5 million. In fiscal year 2009, an additional $2.8 million had been borrowed and $945,000 paid in interest. This debt expense alone was larger than the entire pre-expansion operating budget. For the grand opening, the Taubman Museum had hired additional staff for a total of 52, but the financial pressure forced four rounds of layoffs, during which the staff was trimmed to 17. At the same time, the admission fee increased, from nothing before the project's beginning to $3 during the capital campaign to $10.50 after opening. Even after these drastic measures, the museum is still struggling, fighting for its very survival. Moreover, other arts organizations complained that the museum had become a drain into which cultural funds were being sucked from foundations and philanthropists in Roanoke Valley.Why did the Taubman Museum's fortunes change so drastically after its move? To what extent was the new building -- rather than the depressed economy -- to blame for the severity of its crisis? What measures during the planning process could have been taken to prevent this catastrophe?

Small is Beautiful: Scaling Down the Long Center for the Performing Arts in Austin

June 25, 2012

This case was prepared for a class discussion rather than to demonstrate either effective or ineffective handling of an administrative situation, and is based on seven interviews with staff, board members, and community leaders involved with the Long Center for the Performing Arts project as well as internal documents and the public record. The authors would like to thank all of the people who graciously agreed to be interviewed.

Set in Stone: Building America's New Generation of Arts Facilities, 1994-2008

June 25, 2012

In 2007, just before the domestic economy experienced a major trauma, the Cultural Policy Center at the Harris School and NORC at the University of Chicago launched a national study of cultural building in the United States. It was motivated by multiple requests from leading consultants in the cultural sector who found themselves involved in a steadily growing number of major building projects -- museums, performing arts centers (PACs), and theaters -- and from foundation officers who were frequently asked to help fund these infrastructure projects. With the generous support of the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, the Kresge Foundation, and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, we were able to conduct systematic scientific research on cultural building in the United States between 1994 and 2008 and come to a number of conclusions that have important implications for the cultural sector.

Teaching Artists Research Project

September 1, 2011

There have been remarkable advances in arts education, both in and out of schools, over the last fifteen years, despite a difficult policy environment. Teaching artists, the hybrid professionals that link the arts to education and community life, are the creative resource behind much of this innovation. Their best efforts are redefining the roles the arts play in public education. Their work is central to arts organizations' strategies for civic engagement and diverse audiences. Excellent research has shown that arts education is instrumental to the social, emotional, and cognitive development of thousands of young people. But little is known about teaching artists. The Teaching Artists Research Project (TARP) deepens our understanding of world of teaching artists through studies in twelve communities, and it will inform policy designed to make their work sustainable, more effective, and more meaningful. A dozen study sites were selected where funding was available to support exploration of the local conditions and dynamics in arts education: Boston, Seattle, Providence, and eight California communities (San Francisco/Alameda County, Los Angeles, San Diego, Bakersfield, San Bernardino, Santa Cruz, Salinas, and Humboldt County). A thorough literature review was conducted, and NORC conducted stakeholder meetings and focus groups, identified key issues and began designing a multi-methods study that would include surveys for both artists and program managers as well as in-depth interviews of stakeholders -- teaching artists, program managers, school officials, classroom teachers and arts specialists, principals, funders, and arts educators in a wide variety of venues.There are no professional associations and no accreditation for teaching artists, so a great deal of time was spent building a sample of teaching artists and program managers in every study site. The survey instrument was developed and tested, and then fielded on-line in the study sites sequentially, beginning in Chicago, and ending with the southern California sites. To assure a reliable response rate, online surveys were supplemented by a telephone survey. Lists of potential key informants were accumulated for each site, and interviewers were recruited, hired, and trained in each site. Most of the interviewers were teaching artists themselves, and many had significant field knowledge and familiarity with the landscape of arts education in their community. The surveys collected data on some fundamental questions:Who are teaching artists?Where do they work? Under what terms and conditions?What sort of education have they had?How are they hired and what qualifications do employers look for?How much do they make?How much experience do they have?What drew them to the field? What pushes them out?What are their goals?Qualitative interviews with a subsample of survey respondents and key informants delved deeply into the dynamics and policies that drive arts education, the curricula and pedagogy teaching artists bring to the work, and personal histories of some artists. The interviews gathered more detailed information on the local character of teaching artist communities, in-depth descriptions and narratives of teaching artists' experiences, and followed up on items or issues that arose in preliminary analysis of the quantitative survey data. These conversations illuminated the work teaching artists believe is their best and identified the kinds of structural and organizational supports that enable work at the highest level. The interview process explored key areas with the artists, such as how to best develop their capacities, understand the dynamics between their artistic and educational practice, and how to keep them engaged in the field. Another critical topic explored during these conversations was how higher education can make a more meaningful and strategic contribution toward preparing young artists to work in the field. The TARP report includes serious reflection on the conditions and policies that have affected arts education in schools, particularly over the last thirty years, a period of intense school reform efforts and consistent erosion of arts education for students. The report includes new and important qualitative data about teaching artists, documenting their educational background, economic status, the conditions in which they work, and their goals as artists and educators. It also includes new insights about how learning in the arts is associated with learning in general, illuminating findings from other studies that have suggested a powerful connection between arts education and positive outcomes for students in a wide range of domains.

Arts Education in America: What the Declines Mean for Arts Participation

February 1, 2011

This report, commissioned from the NORC at the University of Chicago, investigates the relationship between arts education and arts participation, based on data from the Survey of Public Participation in the Arts for 1982, 1992, 2002, and 2008. The report also examines long-term declines in Americans' reported rates of arts learning -- in creative writing, music, and the visual arts, among other disciplines. Authors Nick Rabkin and E.C. Hedberg find that the declines are not distributed evenly across all racial and ethnic groups.

Race/Ethnicity and Arts Participation: Findings from the Survey of Public Participation in the Arts

June 13, 2010

This report analyzes data from the 1982, 1985, 1992, 2002, and 2008 Surveys of Public Participation in the Arts (SPPA). Analyses focus on differential arts participation by race/ethnicity and the effect of race/ethnicity on arts participation. Descriptive and inferential analyses explore trends in arts participation by race/ethnicity across the five rounds of SPPA data. The authors find that, generally, the numbers and proportions of all race/ethnic groups that participate in the arts through attendance at arts events and arts creation are declining over time. The proportion of arts audiences that is white is not declining, despite the fact that the proportion of the national population that is white is declining. Race/ethnic group, per se, is not a strong predictor of attendance at arts events, but it is a good predictor of arts creation activities. Whites and Asians have had arts learning experiences at a greater rate than have blacks and Hispanics. Appendices include: (1) Descriptive statistics, 1982-2008; (2) Participation rate in core arts domains, by race/ethnicity, 1992-2008; (3) Participation rate in core arts creation domain, by race/ethnicity, 1992-2008; (4) Race/ethnic composition of arts creators, by arts creation domain, 1992-2008; (5) Effects of race/ethnicity, educational attainment, and their interactions on specific arts participation (full results); (6) Effects of race/ethnicity, household income, and their interactions on specific arts participation (full results); (7) Effects of race/ethnicity on specific arts creation (full results); and (8) Analysis of logistic regression assumptions. (Contains 36 figures, 40 tables and 7 footnotes.)