by Roberto Bedoya (bio), executive director, Tucson Pima Arts Council
“Nothing concedes without a demand.” Frederick Douglas
In the area of equitable grant-making what are the demands being made? Who is making the demands? Who is responding to the demands? What is the nature of the demands? Is it the demand for a policy changes brought on by U.S. demographics, the changing properties of the social good or the economy? What the deep recession has revealed are the fault line in our society—what are the fault lines in philanthropy… what demands have they triggered?
The NCRP report offers us a look at a significant cultural fault line—the politics of resource and position that operates in the culture sector and its relationship to equity and democratic aspirations. It is a report to applaud. (To implicate myself, I acted as an advisory committee member to the research report and there are a few fingerprints of mine in the document.)
As a public funder the relationship to equity issues in never far from the mission of the Tucson Pima Arts Council (TPAC). It is built into our purposes and processes. Both the City and County governments ask for demographic information associated with our grant-making as part of our yearly evaluation. Being accountable to the wide breath of our community and demonstrating equity is part of our charge.
I joke with colleagues that the public I serve ranges from the anarchists to the white gloves and… they let me know it. The beauty of the public sector is that Tucsonans feels that they have the right to assert: “I don’t like that piece of public art, you’ve wasted my money”, “ Why did A get funded and not B?”, “You privilege the majors”, “You privilege community arts” in the newspapers, on talk radio, at City Council meetings, at TPAC Town Hall gatherings. These assertions can move beyond the “sour-grapes” lament of a few, to a broader one – how a group articulates its demands. Most recently, in the context of Arizona’s toxic social/political landscape the call for cultural equity is paramount and embedded in our cultural communities resistance to the far right attacks on civil society. It is a call and demand for Democracy, not the “me and my friends” self-interests of privatization.
In the report, public funding is presented as more accessible to serving marginalized groups than private foundations, which is true. Yet, the dynamic and catalytic presence that the public funders have in our cultural ecosystem is fragile and under great stress as cities struggle to balance their budget, and arts councils find themselves on the chopping block. At the same time public funders are leaders in the field of community cultural development and arts-based civic engagement activities. They are poised to have a greater impact upon our society as our multi-racial nation continues to grow, shape art making practices and cultural participation.
TPAC’s work in community cultural development is primarily through our P.L.A.C.E. (People, Land, Arts, Culture and Engagement) Initiative, which support art-based civic engagement projects that address contested and complex social issue, which is featured in the report. P.L.A.C.E., supports place-making arts activities that shape the physical and social character of the region through projects that creates a sense of “belonging”, that address the politics of marginalization that says you or your community don’t belong.
The success of P.L.A.C.E., is a result of a partnership with the Kresge Foundation, Nathan Cummings Foundations and Open Society Institute who believe that social justice demands that we value diversity, challenge social inequities and fuse “ art, culture and social change”. They understand the important role intermediaries play in achieving this goal. This partnership illuminates a key element of success what in the report is referred to the sovereignty of context, a term that TPAC uses to acknowledge local knowledge and it authority. That moving the equity dial towards a more inclusive democracy is not drive-by work, it takes time and must be rooted in place, in context.
The success of NCRP is that is looks at the politics of marginalization in the cultural philanthropy sector, presents the evidence and prompts reflection on how we serve the public. The demand tied to this analysis is for a more just world, one that is beholding to the evolving richness of our multi-racial sector, that serves our humanity. Change is not all that easy but it must occur, which is a leadership demand that the cultural sector must face if we are to be relevant and of use to our society.
We live in a society where access to basic needs (quality education, healthcare, employment, and yes, cultural resources), is generally determined by income status. And, historically, in this country, income status also correlates with race and ethnicity, with people of color generally getting the short end of the stick. These are stark and troubling facts. To my mind, they are also signs of social, economic, political, and cultural ecosystems out of balance and in decline. As such, the question of equity is not just a matter for ethical discourse and debate—it’s also a matter of survival for all of us.
While discussions about equity among funders are surely difficult, manifesting real change is even harder—much harder. This is because taking concrete steps to advance equity usually means questioning and ultimately altering some deeply held assumptions about the way things work. In my experience, confronting the difference between good intentions and meaningful change is usually at the top of the list. Once real change becomes the definition of success, the difficult bottom line for funders is often saying “no” or “not this year” to folks who are not used to hearing that kind of talk.
I’m not a strong believer in using guilt as an impetus for change. In my experience it just breeds resentment and increases resistance. I also don’t think appeals to “do the right thing” work that well either. I do believe there is something to be said for the kind of old fashioned accountability that comes with running a public agency like the Tucson/Pima Arts Council. Like the Council’s director Roberto Bedoya says in his blog post, “ Being accountable to the wide breath of our community and demonstrating equity is part of our charge.”
Having run a public agency myself, I know that it is often messy and frustrating, but there is also, a constant, and I believe, healthy emphasis on the obligations intrinsic to both philanthropy and citizenship. For public funders, this translates as a mandate to invest its resources for the common good, and be open and responsive to public concerns. For citizens, there is the proviso that accountability runs both ways, and requires informed and assertive public participation. I’m sure Roberto would agree that in real life government systems operate far from this civics primer ideal, but I do think the give and take that does occur can be a stimulant (or irritant) for accountability and equity.
Given this, the question that arises for me is: How might private funders function in ways that increase their accountability to the diverse cultural and social ecosystems they operate in? Given that Foundation governance tends to tilt in the direction of prevailing patterns of privilege, what other practices are there that can help balance the often self-reinforcing patterns of influence that have produced the cultural landscape described in the NCRF report?
It occurred to me that Lynn Stern’s description of the values-based planning process undertaken the Surdna Foundation’s could be instructive. I gather that the Foundation forced a number of difficult ethical issues on to the table by making them mission critical. As such, they couldn’t escape confronting the hard questions, which they did internally, at the staff and board level, and externally, by inviting and listening to a diverse range of outside opinions. I think this kind of shared exposure, and purposeful reflection is a key step for building accountability.
To a certain degree the dialogue shared in this blog has is serving a similar function. And as I have reviewed the discussion, I have found a number thoughtful suggestions and strategies relevant to my question about increasing the accountability quotient among private funders.
The Boston Foundation’s Javier Torres talks about the necessity for “building trust” with constituents by integrating listening, collaboration and reciprocity into his everyday philanthropic practice. Judy Jennings from the Kentucky Foundation for Women provides specific strategies for increasing organizational understanding and awareness of equity issues. While none of these are new, I think they should be considered essential steps for developing accountable funding practices. These include: the regular study and discussion of social, educational, economic and political inequalities; listening to and working with people from under-represented communities; and integrating knowledgeable people from those communities into panels, staff and boards. Justin Lange, from the Heinz Foundation reinforces the interdependent nature of accountability and equity by suggesting that funders who employ the NCRF report’s Funding Typology consider one more critical question:
“What broad changes do ‘marginalized communities’ want to see for themselves?”
I think there is a growing awareness in our society that the essential difference between an authentic story and a false narrative is in the making. I also believe that there is an increasingly assertive segment of our citizenry that knows that, like stories, authentic community investments are truly hand built, with and for the people that will bear the consequences of their impact.
I’m thinking that we all have a lot to learn.