Video-blogging from GIA: Day 2

Our second video report from Grantmakers covers arts and social justice as a vehicle for systemic change, a fantastic keynote from playwright Quiara Alegría Hudes, and our field’s “weird dance” with evaluation. Perhaps someday we’ll figure out how to make our transitions tighter and remember to keep our faces in the camera frame as we’re talking. Until then, we hope our amateurish charm will carry the day. Enjoy!

Posted in Daniel Reid, Ian David Moss, Talia Gibas | Leave a comment

GIA Day 2 Breakout Sessions

Good morning.
“And the beat goes on………………

The first full day of the GIA Conference began with thumbnail presentations by young artists – all of whom were engaging and inspiring. I find it often difficult to write about an artist’s presentation. I am not a critic and don’t have a critic’s toolbox to review artistic merit or even a simple presentation. And as a observer, I find my relationship to an artist is personal and defies easy explanation or classification. Then too mere words often are inadequate to convey an in-person experience.

I went to several breakout sessions today:

First up – Building Demand for the Arts – Ben Cameron and Alan Brown presenting a long, multi year project and study of a program designed to promote the intersection of artists and organizations to think together about how to build demand.

Ben summarized our past approaches: We have gone from Audience Development strategies (principally “butts in the seats” thinking) which have dominated our approach for decades, to Audience Participation thinking, to now Audience Engagement approaches. All along we have embraced the core of what the Wallace Foundation started – how to “broaden, deepen and diversify” our audiences.

And now we are moving to consideration of the phenomenon of “demand” itself. How do we define demand? (It is, it was suggested, more than simply “butts in the seats”). Demand is manifested in various ways. How do we quantify it? What are it’s various relationships to “supply”?

Brown and Cameron suggested the concept has multiple potential frameworks ripe for consideration of ways to expand demand for the arts. One example is in the realm of “settings” – so that presenting the arts in different settings (away from the four walls of the traditional arts venue, and more where the audiences might be) is but one rich opportunity for changing and building demand. Another is in pursuing definable communities. Another is in consideration of the role of algorithms play in Preference Discovery techniques (i.e., when you choose one song on Pandora Radio, the site suggests other songs you might like). There are untold questions to explore when we talk about audiences from the demand perspective – from the role of “free programming” to new ways to use the existing over supply to address demand.

I asked whether the project included looking at where the existing demand is not intersecting with the existing supply (e.g., a younger cohort’s interest in dance, but via virtual presentations and not via the traditional arts four wall venues), but am not sure that fit the framework of the project.

Ben Cameron and Alan Brown are two very smart men, with substantial experience in audiences. So if they argue to me that there are valuable lessons to be learned and benefits to be gained from this project, I support their conclusions. As Ben suggested, this project is less about robust post facto evaluation, and more about creating a community dialogue – particularly between artists and organizations together. I fully agree we still don’t have enough background, data, information and ways to make the informed decisions that will get us to a better place.

But Alan also acknowledged that we have spent years and literally tens of millions of dollars trying to address the question of audiences for the arts. We have tried multiple approaches and done countless studies. And, those efforts have largely not yielded ways to stem the tide of the audience decline over the past decades plus. Alan opined that the decentralized nature of the arts field has led to frustration in this area because there has been so little uptake of the lessons learned. I hope another project — to come at the issue from yet a different perspective — will give us expanded insights and new avenues to pursue that will allow us to finally address our audience challenges, but I think it not unreasonable to wonder how this will turn out substantially different from all the other approaches we have taken – approaches that have not yielded the desired result.

The issue is about “butts in seats” – however one may wish to define what that means (and it certainly may mean more than the literal “butts in seats”). We haven’t yet come up with the answer to stem the decline.

The second breakout session I went to was the Intersection of Creativity, Health and Aging.

This from an AP Story that I read last week:

“The world is aging so fast that most countries are not prepared to support their swelling numbers of elderly people, according to a global study being issued Tuesday by the United Nations and an elder rights group.

The report ranks the social and economic well-being of elders in 91 countries, with Sweden coming out on top and Afghanistan at the bottom. It reflects what advocates for the old have been warning, with increasing urgency, for years: Nations are simply not working quickly enough to cope with a population graying faster than ever before. By the year 2050, for the first time in history, seniors older than 60 will outnumber children younger than 15.”

I have long thought that the relationship between the arts and healing and aging is potentially a goldmine for us. The problem of aging and the attendant health care issues is going to be a major priority across the planet, and governments everywhere will be looking for help in addressing the problems of their aging populations. The arts are one of the answers to any number of those problems. We can form new alliances with governments and be part of the response to this challenge. In the process, we can improve those relationships and our chances for across the board support.

This session provided clear and convincing evidence based on case studies of how the arts can help with Alzheimer’s to Parkinson’s Disease; how storytelling and dance can help senior’s long term conditions; how the arts can de-medicalize those conditions and help aging populations better their situations and improve their life styles. And I think we have barely scratched the surface of the value of the arts in addressing these issues. Every local arts community ought to get involved in this area..

The last session I went to today was a sharing of some of the progress GIA has made in its effort to move the nation’s arts organizations to embrace adequate Capitalization as a cornerstone of their operations.

Here’s what the data they have amassed in a score or more of workshops shows:

The field is largely undercapitalized. Too many arts organizations have little to no working capital, inadequate facilities reserves, and virtually no available risk / change capital. And too many other organizations are incorrectly capitalized. They are trapped by poorly conceived endowments, over invested in buildings, and ill prepared to manage unplanned growth. All of which is straining their capacity to make ends meet.

They also found that size matters. Smaller organizations have less cash flow, but greater flexibility. Larger organizations attract most of the money, but are less flexible.

Past funder behavior has played a roll in this situation. Funders inadvertently created funding approaches that punished surpluses, were inadequate to cover costs, and were often too restrictive. And funders priorities shaped organizational behaviors.

They also found that often grantees spent money on operations despite the money being allocated for other purposes, and that grantees were often not completely honest with their grantors. And if that is true, and I have no doubt to an extent it is, then that, in my opinion is a major issue. If grantees aren’t able to be honest with their grantors how can there be any kind of real working relationship.

Evidence from three funders approaching the challenge, suggests funders are adopting a variety of approaches to help arts organizations get to the point of moving towards adequate capitalization: workshops, trainings, grants et. al. The question that looms is that if adequate capitalization is a core value and objective (because inadequate capitalization limits the viability of the organizations, and in the aggregate threatens the health of a local arts ecosystem), then at what point does the funder say to an organization: “if you can’t achieve adequate capitalization, or at least implement a viable plan to that end, then you are no longer eligible for continued funding”? That question remains unanswered at this point, but needs to be answered soon.

More tomorrow.

Don’t Quit.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Video-blogging from GIA: Day 1

As a special treat to celebrate the Createquity editorial team’s convergence on Philadelphia for the Grantmakers in the Arts conference, we decided to try out a new format: video. In this inaugural go-round, we discuss the arts education preconference, networking, and our session selection strategy. We’re going to try to create and post two more of these before we skip town. Enjoy!

Posted in Daniel Reid, Ian David Moss, Talia Gibas | Leave a comment

Arts Education PreConference

Good Morning
“And the beat goes on…………………………….

Blogging live from a conference is fraught with dangers. Unlike my regular weekly blog, which I can write, then re-write, then ponder, then dig deeper into some point, then re-write yet again — blogging from a conference is much more shooting from the hip. A long day of meetings — the endless parade of speakers and talking heads, and then evening receptions and late at night there you are writing a blog entry; trying to be complete and fair and balanced. And you are tired. Still, there is something about trying to relay and report thinking near to when it happens that is challenging and rewarding.

Few things on our collective agenda are more important, long range, then the re-establishment (or in some cases, the initial establishment) of curriculum based, sequential arts education taught to standards and assessment, by trained arts professionals for K-12 students in all schools in the country. Not only is that goal critical to us in the development of new audiences, supporters, donors and champions, it is critical to the country to produce independent, creative, fully educated citizens who will populate our workforce and underpin our democracy.

Yet that Holy Grail continues to defy out best attempts to make it a reality. We are encouraged by the widespread support for what we intuitively understand to be of enormous value, and for the myriad inroads and advancements we make each year — and at the same time, discouraged by the spiral of forever cycling back to the beginning of the march towards making it happen — never quite overcoming the challenges of funding, politics, scheduling and all the other hurdles we must overcome to put arts in the schools. Hell, we don’t even get invited to half the tables at which decisions that affect us are made.

The latest star to which we are encouraged to hitch our wagons is the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) which is the current educational reform movement du jour — largely, no doubt, a backlash to the mindless testing and narrowing of focus brought about by No Child Left Behind. I don’t mean to make light of this effort. CCSS seeks to establish a single set of standards for teaching competency in English Language Arts and Math in each of the states that adopt the standards (and — impressively — so far, 45 have). The good news is that the standards center around each student having the higher learning skills to process information and relate it to the world — as opposed to simple rote memory. And the creators of the Core Standards seem fully committed to the inclusion of the arts as one of the ways to teach to the new standards. Indeed, one of the principal architects, David Coleman, now President of the College Board argues forcefully that the Arts are well suited to the kinds of studies the CCSS promotes to provide deep and rich earning experiences. There are, to be sure, real opportunities for the arts to embed ourselves into the structure of education to an extent heretofore denied us.

The Standards prescribe what should taught, but not how or when. As the CCSS is rolling out across the country, it is now presumably the job of the arts supporters (and that would be “us”) to catch that train and work to make sure that — as a matter of policy — the arts are used to teach to the new standards. In this light, we join the darling of the Silicon Valley Corporate set — Science — which is also, like the arts, a “means” to teaching Language Arts and Math. And there may well be some real opportunities to partner with the science business lobby in joint, mutually beneficial, efforts. Opportunities long hidden.

Note that there is a completely separate ongoing movement that deals with Standards and Assessment for the Arts as a core subject itself. And those efforts may end up as local bars for teaching, and they too may move towards a national roll out on the state level.

Note too that CCSS is but one educational reform of the past decade and indeed but one currently shaping the matrix. We are still dealing with STEM and STEAM, and TItle I is still the law of the land. Getting arts education into the schools in the way we want is a battle we must simultaneously fight on multiple levels. It is both a political battle (and there are no shortages of arts education enemies and detractors), and a practical battle (questions of funding, teaching training, scheduling, curriculum integration, testing and more bedevil school boards, superintendents, teachers, artists, and parents — all of which must be addressed before we get down to the most important person in the whole scheme — the student.)

We have been fighting these battles — with some success, but in many cases very limited success, for decades now. Our lack of success has largely to do with how complex and daunting a task fighting the battles is — given our limited resources of time, money, leadership and power.

It was suggested at the GIA PreConference on CCSS that one of the biggest opportunities for the arts lies in the provision of Professional Development and training for teachers, and there has already been significant investment in mapping possible Common Core Arts Curriculum thinking; that what we ought to do is work with local school districts to help train teachers how to include the arts as part of the content of teaching to the new standards. And clearly, we ought to do that. Once again, the problem is that to do all that kind of work is time consuming, costs money, and needs qualified people to do it. We are short on all three. Can funders help? One would think so. Will they? That remains unknown.

To be sure, not everyone is fully convinced the role of the arts in the CCSS is necessarily a good thing. Some suggest it once again marginalizes the arts as it relates them to predetermined and preconceived notions of expression — and thus it may deny or bar artistic expressions of dance, music or other performance in favor of using those expressions as means to study and express (in writing) the lessons learned. Others complain that the standards will demand of the arts something impossible for them to deliver given the current framework for arts education. For some people, adding yet one more arrow to our quiver is of little value so long as we remain without a bow to shoot any of those arrows.

The second half of the GIA Common Core PreConference centered on the politics, policy and advocacy efforts necessary to move forward on all the arts education fronts.

Richard Kessler discussed how our focus on practice — on programs, rather than policy — has limited our reach and success in getting arts education in the schools. One example of the cost of that approach is the STEM paradigm. We weren’t at that table when it was created, and so we have, ever since, played catch up in trying to move STEM to STEAM. We need to both recognize where the tables at which we need to be seated are at before decisions are made, and we need to figure out how to wrangle invitations to those tables. Richard suggested that “but for” David Coleman inserting the arts into the fabric of the content envisioned for the CCSS in an architectural way, CCSS might not be much of an opportunity at all for us. I agree it may be folly to count on the David Colemans being there so fortuitously. (And if Mr. Coleman really wants to help the arts, might I humbly suggest that in his new position as President of the College Board he makes sure knowledge of, and some experience with, the arts is one of the requirements for passing SAT tests that determine college aspiring students of their future admission to the college of their choice.)

One of the problems we face in the advocacy arena is that our own best potential advocates and lobbyists — our cultural institutions — especially the larger ones with powerful Boards — are principally interested in their own self-interest. They save their efforts to feather their own nests. That’s completely understandable, but not helpful to the sector as a whole, and certainly not helpful to furthering arts education K-12 efforts.

My own opinion is that powerful Board members of major cultural institutions are first and foremost interested in spending their political chips on access that benefits their own personal business interests, and only after that expenditure are they interested next in pushing the interests of the arts organization with which they are affiliated. There is little to no room left to push for sector wide advantages, and that includes arts education.

The question is what might funders do that will influence and impact how we organize and leverage whatever clout we may have in the arts to efforts — life arts education — that benefit all of us. That is a very difficult question politically, and gets made, if at all, on an individual, case by case, basis. What else can funders do to enable arts organizations and arts administrators to engage in effective policy work?

The remainder of the afternoon included a number of entreaties urging the funding community to get involved, and stay involved, in helping to promote advocacy for arts education, at all levels. Good advice we have heard before — but again where is the time, money, expertise and leadership to carry it forward.

I heard two excellent pieces of advice that everyone should take to heart:
Joe Landon, Executive Director of the California Alliance for Arts Education, advised funders in the audience that if they really wanted to have an impact they should look for and listen carefully to people who truly understand how things work and get done on a local level for suggestions to how to successfully move forward. That is sage advice.
Laura Zucker, Executive Director, Los Angeles County Arts Commission advised funders to consider that advocacy efforts and organizations are not your grantees, but your partners.

There are ten thousand plus school districts in America. Maybe as many as a hundred thousand schools. Almost all of them are guided by local decision making — decentralized, subject to local politics. As vast as the nonprofit arts are, with our tentacles into virtually every community in America, we are not yet organized enough, nor equipped with the necessary time, money and other resources, to truly effectively lobby across that mass. The rich districts and schools are more likely to have arts offerings. My fear with the Common Core, for a variety of reasons, is that it will once again fall victim to the result of “haves” and “have-nots”. Big problem for us and for the country. But that is not a reason not to support and try, as vigorously as we can, to embrace the CCSS and do what we can to insure the arts are part of the content that is part of the curriculum in the CCSS approach. There are victories for us to win here. Lots of them. And building on those victories is the way we move forward.

But we need to remember this is not the “Open Sesame” answer to all the challenges. Just another step. Another arrow. Be nice if someone would buy us a bow so we can start shooting some of these arrows.

Like Sisyphus we keep pushing the arts education rock up the hill. Always pushing.

Don’t Quit

Posted in Barry Hessenius | Leave a comment

Twenty Major Issues GIA Members Face

I’m off to Philadelphia next week to attend, and blog live from, the Grantmakers In the Arts annual conference — joining fellow bloggers Diane Ragsdale and Ian David Moss (and his team). This is my first visit back to a great city in four years, and I go with the remembrance of Peggy Amsterdam — who led the Greater Philadelphia Cultural Alliance — and who left us far too early back in 2009. We all continue to try to live up to the bar she set.

I was a funder once. As Director of the California Arts Council I had a $32 million plus annual grants budget. More than most public or private arts funders — then, or now. Very few avocations are as satisfying as giving away money to affect change. But while it is on many levels the best of all possible jobs, it isn’t nearly as easy as some might imagine. There are so many variables and issues to take into consideration, that it is often frustratingly disappointing that you can only begin to have the impact you hope to have. Virtually every decision you make satisfies someone and disappoints or angers someone else. The pie simply isn’t ever big enough to satisfy the legitimate demand. You are constantly robbing Peter to pay Paul. Then there are the internal and external politics of the arena; the ever changing landscape in which the arts operate where goals and objectives are lofty and aspirational, and sometimes, but only sometimes, realistically possible; and finally, the fragile and delicate ecosystem of the sector. That is the nature of the beast — and where win-win more often than not seems far, far distant.

Cities, regions, states and the country all grapple with how to nurture and support the arts. Our host city of Philadelphia is no exception. Here is an article that describes the Philly art scene and its challenges. The themes will be familiar to most of GIA’s Conference delegates.

As I look forward to the GIA Conference next week, and the speakers and panels and sessions that will attempt to address some of the issues arts funders face, I know that much of the serious discussion will go on outside of those planned activities — in the lobbies and hallways, at the bar, and during the breaks and at breakfasts, lunches, dinners and receptions. I know that there are scores of issues on the minds of the different attendees — issues they grapple with all year. I know too that there are no easy answers to most of the challenges funders face; no necessarily right or wrong answers.

Here is a quick and admittedly spartan list of Twenty of the Major Issues an arts funder (public or private) has to have on their plate. These issues won’t go away, and they impact the entire arts funding mechanisms. Some are more critical to one group of funders, others more important to another group. I hope to be able to come away from the GIA Conference with some of the thinking that is going on with these challenges:

Philanthropic and Government Arts Funder Issues

  1. Allocation: For every funder, the demand is greater than their resources. The fundamental question for arts funders is: How to allocate limited funds? Do you give bigger grants to fewer organizations, or less money to more applicants? Do you fund each applicant on a case by case basis, or do you consider each as part of the health of an entire localized arts ecosystem?
  2. Equity: Increasingly arts funders are grappling with an offshoot of the Allocation dilemma — the Equity issue. What is fair in terms of allocation? How do you support both large established cultural organizations and nurture smaller, multicultural entities? How much to the old guard, how much to the new?
  3. Fidelity: How long should a grantor stay with a grantee? When should / ought a grantor stop funding a grantee? What is fair? What works best? What are the considerations in such a determination?
  4. Due Diligence: How extensive should / can a grantor vet grantees both before and after the grant? Where are the resources to do a reasonable job? Are arts funders too cavalier in failing to meet this challenge? What are the implications?
  5. Capitalization: How to bring grantees to a point where they achieve adequate capitalization to survive and thrive in ever changing times. Should adequate capitalization be a requirement for funding?
  6. Focus I: Where ought the focus be? Should the grantor invest in organizations, in programs or in people?
  7. Focus II: Should the grantor invest in organizations or artists? In sector initiatives or individual organizations? In programs or operating expenses? Restricted or unrestricted? Where are the focus balances?
  8. Impact and Measurable Results: How to best measure and evaluate the impact of funding. Should achievement of outcomes be important for continued funding? How to get scale in the aggregate? — meaning how does the funder achieve large goals and objectives as a result of the aggregate of its funding efforts?
  9. Data and Research driven decision making: What is the role of data, information and research in guiding decision making? Is the time and cost reasonable to acquire and apply the data and research?
  10. Emphasis / Strategy: Where ought the strategic emphasis be? On capacity building, on sustainability, or on engagement? On all three? Or somewhere else? Should the emphasis be short or long, long term?
  11. Client / Constituent Designation: Who does the funder ultimately serve — the grantee, the sector or the public? Who are the funders stakeholders, who are their authorizing agents?
  12. Intersections: Where are the intersections for synergistic collaboration between public, private, corporate, and crowdsourcing funders? Where are the intersections to work with other sectors? How do you develop that collaboration to identify and work in concert for common goals? Or do you?
  13. Technology: How do you first fully understand, then promote the integration of technology into grantee thinking as part of their audience development, marketing, fundraising, professional development, management and other strategies?
  14. The Law of Unintended Consequences: What are the possible (negative) consequences of the best of intended strategies and actions by the funder. For example, for a decade or longer funders concentrated on funding programs and projects, but without support for the administration costs of those added programs and projects. The intention was to expand the reach of programs to the public. The unintended consequence was to stretch arts organization operations budgets thin. How do you anticipate the unintended consequences of any given approach to funding? What do you do after the fact when unintended consequences come to light?
  15. Relationships: How does the funder address the fundamental inequality and power imbalance by and between grantors and grantees? How much can funders reasonably demand of grantees? What are the negative consequences of that imbalance?
  16. Leverage: How does the funder promote leveraging its funding so the grantee diversifies its revenue stream?
  17. Internal Direction: Often times an arts (or grants) program officer has to deal with Board / Council established protocols and priorities that tend towards the more conservative. How does the arts program officer move the Board / Council and Senior Officers and shift priorities, processes and protocols?
  18. Transparency: How open and public should be the decision making process of a funder? How different is that question for private v. public funders?
  19. Framework: All funders have to be concerned with the trends governing the health of arts philanthropic giving, and of public funding to the arts.
  20. Planning: Compounding the challenges is the need to try to make educated and informed guesses as to what the future may hold — at least in the reasonable short term, so as to “plan”.

Each of these issues is complex with layers of sub-issues. Lots of questions, fewer answers. This list is by no means exhaustive, as there are many other issues the arts funder faces.

I look forward to the GIA Conference as it is one of my favorite gatherings — smart people and provocative dialogue and discussion. Small enough to have a sense of intimacy, but inclusive and large enough to give voice to a full range of thinking. GIA is a much bigger tent than it once was. Janet and Tommer and the GIA staff are to be commended.

Have a great week.

Don’t Quit

Posted in Barry Hessenius | Leave a comment

Meet the bloggers: Talia Gibas

Talia Gibas, CreatequityTalia Gibas, Associate Editor at Createquity, also is Arts for All Manager at the Los Angeles County Arts Commission. Arts for All works to restore and sustain high quality arts education throughout Los Angeles County. Working closely with the Los Angeles County Office of Education, Talia is responsible for arts education professional development programming for school district leaders. She also manages grant programs that support those leaders and connect school districts with teaching artists and arts organizations throughout the County. Prior to joining the Arts Commission in February 2009 she was Program Assistant at the Getty Foundation. She earned her A.B. in Interdisciplinary Studies in the Humanities from the University of Chicago, and Ed.M in Arts in Education from the Harvard Graduate School of Education. She currently serves on Americans for the Arts’ Arts Education Council and completed the Createquity Writing Fellowship in January 2013. Talia originally hails from Philadelphia. In her non-arts life, she is a distance runner and triathlete and completed her first Half-Ironman distance race in mid-July 2013.

Posted in Talia Gibas | Leave a comment

Meet the bloggers: Barry Hessenius

Barry HesseniusFormer Director California Arts Council, President California Assembly of Local Arts Agencies, and Executive Director of LINES Ballet. Author, consultant, blogger and public speaker. Barry published his work Hardball Lobbying for Nonprofits in 2007 (Macmillan & Company, New York). He conducted a two phase study with reports released in 2007 and 2009 for the Hewlett Foundation on the issue of generational management & succession in the arts. He authored several other studies including the California Arts Advocacy Handbook, the Local Arts Agency Funding Study for the Aspen Institute and the City Arts Agency Tool Kit. He is author of the most widely read blog in the nonprofit arts field – Barry’s Blog.

A founding member and Vice-Chair of California Arts Advocates and the United Statewide Community Arts Association, he was also been a board member of the National Association of State Arts Agencies (NASAA), the California Alliance for Arts Educators (CAAE), California CultureNet, the California State Summer School for the Arts, the California Travel Industry Association (CalTIA), and a member of the State Superintendent’s Task Force on Arts Education. Barry is currently on the Board of Directors of the San Francisco Architectural Foundation.

Posted in Barry Hessenius | Leave a comment

Meet the bloggers: Ian David Moss

Ian David Moss, CreatequityFounder and Editor-in-Chief of Createquity, Ian David Moss helps funders, government agencies, and others support the arts more effectively by harnessing the power of data to drive informed decision-making. As Research Director for Fractured Atlas, Ian designed and leads implementation of the organization’s pioneering cultural asset mapping software, Archipelago, which aggregates and visualizes information about creative activities in a particular geography in order to better illuminate who’s making art, who’s engaging with it, where it’s happening, and how it’s made possible. A member of the Americans for the Arts Emerging Leaders Council, he was previously Development Manager for the American Music Center and founded two first-of-their-kind performing ensembles: a hybrid electric chamber group/experimental rock band and a choral collective devoted to the music of the past 25 years. He holds BA and MBA degrees from Yale University.

Posted in Ian David Moss | Leave a comment

Meed the bloggers: Diane Ragsdale

blogger_Diane-RagsdaleDiane Ragsdale is currently working at Erasmus University in Rotterdam, where she has lectured on such topics as the creative economy, cultural organizations, and arts management, and where she is pursuing a PhD. Her dissertation topic is the evolution in the relationship between the nonprofit and commercial theater in the US since 1970.

For the six years prior to moving to Europe, Diane worked in the Performing Arts program at The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and had primary responsibility for grantmaking in theater and dance. Before joining the Foundation, Diane served as managing director of On the Boards, a contemporary performing arts center in Seattle, and as executive director of a destination music festival in a resort town in Idaho. Prior work also includes stints at several film and arts festivals and as a theater actor, director and producer. She is a frequent panelist, provocateur, or keynote speaker at arts conferences within and outside of the US. You can read her blog, Jumper, on Arts and follow her on Twitter @DERagsdale.

Posted in Diane Ragsdale | Leave a comment

Meet the bloggers: Daniel Reid

Daniel Reid, CreatequityDaniel Reid is an editorial consultant to Createquity. He is currently the Director of Strategic Planning at the CUNY Institute for Education Policy at Roosevelt House. Over the course of his editorial career, he has worked as a book editor at two New York publishing houses, written book reviews for several publications, and published articles on federal, state, and local arts policy issues.

Most recently, he is the co-author, with Ian David Moss, of “Audiences at the Gates: Reinventing Arts Philanthropy through Guided Crowdsourcing,” which appeared in the Summer 2012 edition of Grantmakers in the Arts Reader. Daniel has also provided strategic guidance to a wide range of public and private institutions, including arts and culture organizations such as UNESCO and the Illinois Humanities Council, as a former McKinsey Engagement Manager and pro bono consultant. A graduate of the Yale Law School, he serves on the Board of Directors of Sideshow Theatre Company and is a member of the National Book Critics Circle.

Posted in Daniel Reid | Leave a comment