CPAA evaluation: Interim findings

1. CPAA evaluation:Interim findings Mark Stern and Susan Seifert Social Impact of the Arts Project University of Pennsylvania July 2006

2. Elements of the assessment • Small-area analysis of grantees’ participation data • Key informant interviews with those involved in CPAA • Survey of artists working or living in North Philadelphia and Camden • Survey of non-arts organizations in North Philadelphia and Camden • Monitoring partnerships

3. Interim report • Do high crime rates suppress cultural participation? • Did cultural participation change between 2004 and 2005? • How do grantees assess CPAA at its midpoint?

4. Serious crime in North Philadelphia, 1999-2004

5. Cultural participation did not suffer because of crime. In fact those sections of the city with the highest cultural participation usually had higher than average crime rates.

6. These data only tell us about the relationship between individuals’ cultural participation and the crime rate in their neighborhoods. They don’t tell us whether the perception of crime in North Philadelphia and Camden discourages people from attending events in these neighborhoods. Ironically, it is the Center City groups—not those in North Philadelphia—that are located in the higher crime neighborhoods

7. Did cultural participation rates change between 2004 and 2005? Our central measure of cultural participation is based on data that grantees provided. For this analysis, we restricted ourselves to participation for which we had equivalent data in both 2004 and 2005. Overall, we estimate that cultural participation in CPAA grantee programs increased by 22 percent between 2004 and 2005

8. Caveat emptor (buyer beware) These data must be seen as a ‘first-cut’ on participation. With successive data waves (Spring 2007 and 2008), we will have a more reliable picture of patterns of participation. Help! CPAA core goal is to increase cultural participation in North Philadelphia and Camden. Our ability to document CPAA’s success (or failure) is linked to grantees’ ability and willingness to collect accurate evidence on participation in their programs.

9. How do grantees assess CPAA at its midpoint? • We found a sharp split in grantees’ perceptions of the effectiveness of the initiative. • Organizations that were INSTITUTIONALLY-ORIENTED were more likely to see themselves as well-integrated in CPAA • Organization that are COMMUNITY-ORIENTED were more likely to see themselves as less well-integrated into the initiative.

10. Community-oriented Generally located in North Philadelphia or Camden Usually located in African American or Latin American neighborhoods Work directly with members of community Institutionally-oriented Generally, not based in North Philadelphia or Camden Usually located in predominantly white or diverse neighborhoods Work with schools, public housing authorities, and other nonprofit institutions Grantees’ orientation

11. What’s working • One universal message to emerge from the interviews was an appreciation of the Foundation’s long-term funding commitment • Community-oriented grantees see CPAAs primary contribution as the opportunity to stabilize programs or expand upon their long-term strategies • Institutionally-oriented grantees see CPAAs greatest contribution as providing opportunities to expand institutional partnerships, especially with schools. • A variety of grantees expressed enthusiasm about community outreach strategies, using artists, humanities scholars, and “ambassadors” to engage community residents directly.

12. Some challenges: • Residents have come to see cultural programs as “free” and resist paying even nominal fees for them • Partnerships between large bureaucratic organizations and smaller cultural groups are often asymmetrical. Institutional rigidity, for example, has been a major barrier in the formation of a citywide Latin jazz ensemble. • Community-oriented grantees were more skeptical about the utility of partnering: • “The partnering is fine if it makes sense,” noted one grantee. “On the other hand, if you already have the resources, there is little point in getting someone involved just to get them involved.”

13. Different views of partnerships and communities • Institutionally oriented grantees see partnerships as their primary means of reaching communities. They believe that the institutionally-based programs will have a spill-over effect on communities • “The students’ enhanced self-knowledge through the creation of art and their sharing of that art within their families, schools, and neighborhoods will form the basis of a stronger, healthier, and more culturally enriched community.” • Community-oriented grantees see partnerships as only one means of achieving their ends. Classes, public events, and festivals are equally important. Several said they felt pressure to accommodate institutionally-oriented grantees even though this carried real costs. • .

14. Perception of TCC’s role • During planning phase, TCC was an active advocate of strategies based on building organizational capacity and institutional partnerships • During implementation, TCC has a more circumscribed role: providing a limited amount of individual coaching and facilitating peer exchange through workshops • Several grantees have interpreted this shift as a change in strategy: from a ‘hands on’ to a ‘hands off’ approach. “I applaud Knight for doing something that’s so iffy. Take this money and do something with it “

15. For discussion • A considerable amount of effort and expertise has been devoted to institutional partnership-building • Relatively little attention has been devoted to strategies that use artists and ‘ambassadors’ to provide direct outreach to members of the community • Would it make sense to provide more technical support to those grantees’ using these direct outreach strategies? If so, how should it be organized?