Arts and Non-arts Partnerships

1 In 2003, the foundation changed its name from the Wallace-Reader?s Digest Funds to The Wallace Foundation. .
Organizations of all types are increasingly
forming partnerships?including
with organizations outside their fields?
to help them carry out their missions.
The arts are no exception. Many are
working with agencies not primarily
devoted to the arts?educational,
health, religious, youth development,
human services, recreational, and community
development organizations?to
accomplish both artistic and community
service goals that might otherwise be far
more difficult, if not impossible, to
achieve. Such partnerships are not easy
to forge or maintain, however. Success
depends on each partner?s willingness
and ability to live up to its part of the
bargain. Partnerships involve risks,
because arts and non-arts organizations
differ in many ways. At stake are reputations,
constituent relations, organizational
missions, and investments of time,
money, and expertise if a project does
not go well.
Fortunately, important practical
lessons are emerging from the experiences
of arts and non-arts collaborators
that can help organizations
identify and reduce these risks. This
brief draws on the experience of partnerships
supported by the Community
Partnerships for Cultural Participation
Initiative, funded by The Wallace
Foundation,1 between 1998 and 2002,
to offer lessons on:
.
Example: A partnership
between a large art
museum and a major
community development
organization involved the
creation in a poor neighborhood
of a visual art gallery that
engages youth in all aspects of
gallery operation. The community
development organization benefited
from introducing youth to a variety of
careers in the arts?everything from
making art to managing the business.
The art museum gained a new
audience and public credit for helping
train disadvantaged youth.
0 Assessing the benefits arts/non-arts
partnerships can bring to both parties
0 Diagnosing potential partnership
problems in advance
0 Choosing partnerships that have a
good chance of succeeding
0 Developing strategies to maximize
the chances of success2
2 Supporting data come from two one-page mail surveys conducted in 2000 in five communities?three metropolitan
areas (Boston, Detroit, Kansas City) and two California counties (Santa Clara, Humboldt). The arts survey
was mailed to almost 6,500 organizations of which more than 1,300 responded, the non-arts survey to over 2,200
organizations of which more than 550 responded. In addition, in 2001 we interviewed staff of arts and non-arts
organizations involving 28 community foundation?funded partnerships in nine communities to learn in much
greater detail about the benefits and challenges of partnership projects.
The major benefits arts groups in our
study sought from collaborating with
non-arts groups were greater public
credit for community involvement,
connections to new communities of
potential participants, and wider
opportunities to carry out creative
work. The benefits non-arts groups
sought were better programs and a
reputation for being more effective in
their community work.
Example: A partnership between five
small theater companies and a public
library system?s central office involved
a series of plays performed in branch
libraries. The project deliberately
placed theater performances in neighborhoods
with different populations
from those usually served by the
theaters. The library earned the reputation
of presenting high-quality theater
performances. The theaters
received the benefit of exposing their
work to audiences that had little prior
experience with live drama.
Mutual Benefits of Partnerships between
Arts and Non-arts Groups
Success
depends on each
partner?s willingness and
ability to live up to
its part of the bargain.
.
Arts groups can also take advantage of
the already high involvement of nonarts
organizations in the arts. More
than half (53 percent) of our survey
respondents ?present, support, or otherwise
participate in? arts and cultural
activities; one in five (20 percent) do so
frequently over the course of a year?
at least once every two months on
average.
Involvement by non-arts groups in the
arts takes many forms, meaning that
arts groups can choose their
own best way to attract,
increase, and deepen
others? involvements in
the programs and
events they offer. Most
frequently, non-arts
groups organize group
participation in arts programs;
nearly a third of
groups (31 percent) participate
in this way (see exhibit 1).
Other ways include providing venues
for events (24 percent), helping organize
programs or supply volunteers (21
percent), contributing to funding or
sponsorship (20 percent), and advocating
for the arts (11 percent). Twothirds
of all organizations that
participate in the arts are involved in
more than one way, and 18 percent
are involved in four or five ways.
Involvement rates are greater for some
types of non-arts groups than for others
(exhibit 2), but all are involved in arts
and culture activity to a relatively high
degree. For even the least involved
group?health-related organizations?
almost half (46 percent) are involved in
some way. For youth development,
community development, educational,
and recreational organizations, about
two-thirds (anywhere from 63 to 67
percent) are involved with the arts. This
diversity of groups affords multiple
opportunities for potentially productive
arts/non-arts relationships.
The partnerships we studied reflect the
diversity of organizations and activities.
As exhibit 3 shows, non-arts partners
came from educational, religious,
youth development, human services,
and community development sectors.
All of these organizations helped with
the production of programs or events,
principally by supplying students, volunteers,
and other amateur participants,
and also by arranging group
attendance, developing programs, and
providing spaces where exhibits or
performances could take place.
The Connections of Non-arts Organizations
to the Arts
Partnership Assets Can Also Be Liabilities
Partnerships create value because
they bring together the different
assets of arts and non-arts partners.
But partners? assets can also be potential
liabilities. The very advantages arts
partners may seek from a particular
non-arts partner can create tensions
that make collaboration difficult.
.
Identifying these potential liabilities
can increase the chances of success.
To help compare the contributions of
organizations with joint project work,
we classified organizational assets and
corresponding liabilities into four types:
0 Community reputation?the public?s
view of the organization, its
activities, and its contributions to
the community.
0 Constituent scope and strength?the
number, diversity, and clout of
stakeholders with a legitimate claim
to influence the policies, programs,
and practices of organizations.
0 Organizational capabilities?leadership,
staff talent and time, financing,
programs, facilities, internal systems,
and other aspects of organizational
capacity to carry out an organization?s
mission.
31
24
21
20
11
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Organize Group Participation
Provide a Venue
for Programs
Help Organize and
Supply Volunteers
Contribute to Fundingor Sponsorship
Advocate for the Arts
Percent of Non-arts Organizations
E X H I B I T 1
HOW NON-ARTS ORGANIZATIONS PARTICIPATE IN ARTS ACTIVITIES
SOURCE
Urban Institute:
Non-arts Organization Survey 2000
NOTE
N = 1,343. Percentages total more than
100 percent due to multiple responses.
.
0 Mission and culture?the generally
accepted social purpose of the organization
and the blend of values,
beliefs, and attitudes that organizational
members share as they pursue
these purposes.
Exhibit 4 shows the most typical assetliability
correspondences found among
our study organizations. Potential
assets are on the left. The corresponding
potential liability is on the right.
For example, a reputation in one part
of the community for creativity,
insight, and cultural conservation and
innovation may be seen as elitism,
insularity, and narrow organizational
interest in another part of the community.
The terms in the chart are characterizations
that we heard project
partners and other community members
use to describe their general perceptions
of different organizations.
For example, in one project, a community-
based arts agency used its connec-
67 67 66
63
59
55 55 55
46
0
20
10
30
40
50
60
70
YouthDevelopment
CommunityDevelopment
Educational
Institutions
Recreational
Fundraising/Philanthropy
Advocacy
Religious/Spiritual
Human Services
Health
Type of Non-arts Organization
Percent Participating in Arts and Culture
E X H I B I T 2
TYPES OF NON-ARTS ORGANIZATIONS THAT PARTICIPATE IN ARTS AND CULTURAL ACTIVITIES
SOURCE
Urban Institute:
Non-arts Organization Survey 2000
NOTE
N = 1,343. Percentages total more than
100 percent due to multiple responses.
.
E X H I B I T 3
TYPES OF GROUPS AND PROJECTS INCLUDED IN FIELD RESEARCH
Types of Non-arts
Partners (# of Projects) Types of Arts Partners Types of Projects| Cultural council| Musical theater| Arts incubator| Visual arts gallery| Artist colony| Dance company| Rural CDC arts program| Children?s theater| Artist support organization| Arts and humanities councils| Annual arts festival| Coalition of small cultural
organizations| University printmaking shop| Art and performance gallery| Art college| Immigrant museum| Theater company| Latino arts and cultural
center| Large art museum| City cultural affairs
department| Large theater company| Oral history center| Photography training studio| Dance company| Large performing arts center| Local art commission| Rural heritage association| History museums| Art promoters| Large orchestra
Schools and Libraries
(5 projects)
Social Service
Organizations
(10 projects)
Housing and
Community
Development
Organizations
(5 projects)
YMCAs and Boys and
Girls Clubs
(4 projects)
Religious Congregations
(4 projects)| Arts in curriculum| Artists? residency programs| Summer dance camp| Theatrical performance series| Intergenerational oral history| Neighborhood health festival| Mural project by incarcerated teens| Art exposure for adolescents| School grief and loss program| Youth theater production| Printmaking classes for seniors| Exhibit on Latino culture| World music festival and year-round performance series| Youth development and cultural tourism| Community oral histories| Youth-focused art gallery| Business and cultural promotion| Community mural project| Cross-neighborhood oral history program| Mural and banner project| After-school dance program| Summer Shakespeare camp| Musical concert by developmentally disabled adults
and teens| Preservation of religious artifacts| Musician residencies| Arts activities for children in public housing| Community-based play drawn from resident
interviews
tions throughout the cultural community
to bring arts and cultural organizations
together in a coalition of
groups interested in promoting arts in
a Hispanic, low-income area of the
city. This agency was able to complement
the work of a community development
agency, whose focus was business
promotion. But in another similar
project, the arts partner lacked the
skills needed to work with community
residents, which led to a disappointing
E X H I B I T 4
ATTRIBUTES OF ARTS AND NON-ARTS ORGANIZATIONS, PHRASED AS PERCEIVED POTENTIAL ASSETS
AND LIABILITIES
Perceived Potential Assets Perceived Potential Liabilities
Creativity; insight; cultural conservation
and innovation.
Elite patrons and donors. Strong attachments
formed by subscribers and other
patrons.
Staff artistry; cultural awareness; performance
or gallery space; connections to arts
and cultural funders.
Arts and cultural creation or preservation.
Emphasis on quality of art.
Dedicated and hardworking staff;
advocates for the least fortunate.
Minority and low-income communities
and adherents to social causes; diverse
support from foundations, government,
and individuals.
Knowledge of program services and educational
models and practices; ownership of
facilities.
Mission of social and community improvement.
Emphasis on efforts to help least
advantaged.
Arts Organizations
Reputation
Constituency
Capability
Mission
Non-arts Organizations
Reputation
Constituency
Capability
Mission
Elitism; insularity; narrow self-interest.
Only focused on arts; appeal only to elite
or avant garde; lack of community support.
Limited to specific types of performance or
exhibition space; reliance on individuals
with rare skills or talent.
Inflexibility in pursuit of creative excellence
and artistic control.
Self-righteous; suspicion of creative ideas
and approaches.
Demands for social programming; resistance
to departures from customary activities;
hamstrung by community process and
pull of multiple interests.
Overworked and underfunded.
Sense of entitlement to public and
community support.
.
turnout at community meetings, low
participation in a community art project,
and few community murals that
would have heightened the visibility
of target neighborhoods.
The experiences of arts and non-arts
partners in the study point out important
lessons regarding assets and corresponding
liabilities.
For non-arts agencies, the fundamental
benefit of partnership was the creation
of quality programming. This, in
turn, led to increased community and
client involvement, improved public
reputations, and more active constituent
support. Schools and human
service agencies, for example, used arts
partners to help engage students or
clients and get them to participate
.
more actively in their services.
Community development agencies
came increasingly to recognize the
importance of cultural programming
as a powerful form of community
organizing. The lesson: A commitment
to quality necessary to realize these
benefits brings with it standards for
product and performance that also
place considerable demands on participants.
Non-arts partners need to
respect those standards?and the
demands they bring?to reap the benefits
of arts partnerships.
For arts agencies, the primary benefits
from non-arts partnerships were
increased community awareness of
their mission and services and
improved outreach and involvement.
In one project, for example, murals
aimed at fostering a shared community
identity were created across the county.
Individual neighborhoods participated
in projects designed to present positive
images of the neighborhood to local
residents and outsiders. In addition to
beautifying the neighborhoods and
reinforcing the community?s assets, it
was hoped that the murals would also
attract tourists interested in learning
more about the neighborhoods. While
this project was successful in accomplishing
its goals because the community
was involved at every step, not all
mural projects can claim the participation
of artists or arts organizations that
understand and value the everyday politics
of community projects. The lesson:
Arts organizations need to recognize
that non-arts organizations often have
processes developed specifically to promote
community engagement and
client participation. Artists accustomed
to having full artistic control may view
these processes as compromising their
artistic integrity. But if the legitimate
requirements of non-arts organizations
are not accommodated, the anticipated
increases in community visibility and
involvement cannot be expected to
occur.
Understanding the Risks
Just as financial investors risk their
assets if projects fail, arts organizations
and non-arts groups also risk reputations,
time, money, or other assets in
partnerships. These potential risks
should be clear to each party.
Example: A music society formed a
partnership with a church diocese.
The music society, seeking to reach
out to new audiences, committed to
performing its standard repertoire in
churches throughout the city. This
performance program required the
society?s leadership to be willing
to (1) maintain the arts
organization?s reputation
for high artistic quality
in an unfamiliar
venue; (2) convince its
board that the strategy
would translate into
new audiences;
(3) commit musicians?
time and the resources to
pay them; and (4) take on
this new initiative without distracting
from its core mission. For
Just
as financial
investors risk their assets
. . . arts organizations and
non-arts groups also risk
reputations, time, money
or other assets in
partnerships.
.
Partnerships can fail for three major
reasons: partners can?t carry out
their assignments (?capacity
risk?), won?t do so (?commitment
risk?), or can?t
agree on what counts as
success (?culture risk?).
There is also a fourth
type of risk?the risk of
unanticipated costs. All
projects face the last risk,
but partnerships can aggravate
it, leading to what might be
termed a ?partnership tax.?
Capacity risk refers to the inability
of partners to carry out assigned tasks
in a given partnership. Example: A wellmeaning
artistic director of a dance
company, collaborating with a youth
development agency, expected that
bringing different groups of teens
together to participate in a performance
would be relatively straightforward
due to their shared interest in
dance. She discovered that not only
were there cultural and class conflicts
among the teens, but that she was
wholly unprepared to deal with them.
To ensure that the project continued
to its successful conclusion, non-arts
partner staff agreed to attend all
rehearsals to help prevent or resolve
conflicts.
Commitment risk refers to insufficient
motivation by one or more
partners to carry out an obligation.
Mismatches in organizational priorities
turned out to be the most common
form of commitment risk. Example: A
cultural coalition came together
quickly to seize an unusual opportunity
to work with the Latino business community
to create and package new
local dining, arts, and entertainment
programs and events. The non-arts
partner charged with bringing business
people on board?an entrepreneurial
but somewhat overextended community
development corporation?
became less and less willing to press
ahead, distracted by the need to seize
fleeting real estate development opportunities.
As a result, the overall effort
stalled.
Corporate culture risk refers to differences
across organizations that can
disrupt smooth working relationships
their part, the churches had to (1) preserve
their loyalties to their community
while committing to a new endeavor
that some in their communities might
see as elitist; (2) encourage congregants
to accept music they may not be accustomed
to; (3) agree to invest their
church choir?s time to rehearse; and
(4) not let musical performance overshadow
worship as the reason for congregating.
In fact, one church decided
that these commitments weren?t worth
making, and its withdrawal from the
project caused the music society a significant
loss in invested time and effort.
Fortunately, other congregations
deemed the gains from participation
worth their investments, and both they
and the music society accomplished
their artistic and community goals.
Types of Partnership Risks
.
between arts and non-arts partners.
These are expressed in work styles,
ways of thinking, and notions of professionalism,
among other aspects of
everyday work. Example: A community
social services agency sought to nurture
professional artistic talent within
the immigrant community it served by
sponsoring photographic documentation
of Latino foodways, rituals, customs,
and aspects of everyday life.
Its historical society partner eagerly
agreed to curate and present the
resulting work as a way to diversify
participation in its own offerings and
to improve the quality of its programs.
However, the non-arts partner did not
know that a professional exhibit can
take a year or more to produce and
was initially confused by what seemed
to be indifference on the part of its
larger partner. Tension around the
delay had to be defused, which
required the non-arts partner to learn
about the curatorial process, understand
why it was important for the
project, and explain it to an expectant
community.
RESPONDING TO RISK
Diagnosing the problems that give rise
to risk enables partners to deal with it
effectively. The fundamental requirement
is to distinguish between ?structural?
and ?situational? difficulties.
The former may be so intractable as
to preclude project success. The latter
can be successfully overcome.
Structural difficulties arise from mismatches
between organizational
capacities, priorities, and cultures that
are so severe that successful project
completion becomes highly unlikely
or impossible. Example: Following the
1999 tragedy at Columbine High
School in Littleton, Colorado, where
two students shot and killed 12 schoolmates
and a teacher and then themselves,
a school district, a coalition of
grief and trauma counseling agencies,
and a children?s theater group formed
a partnership to produce a new play
written by and for high school students
to explore effective ways to respond
to loss. Coalition members and the
teachers they trained would lead postproduction
discussions with students.
But the arts organization?s desire to
push ahead rapidly, the coalition?s
need to secure a time-consuming
Diagnosing
the problems
that give rise to risk
enables partners to deal
with it effectively.
.
Partnerships, by their nature, can
encounter unplanned and uncompensated
costs. They are time- and
management-intensive, partly because
arts and non-arts partners need to
accustom themselves to different ways
and styles of communication and sometimes
because physical distance creates
logistical challenges and expenses.
Planning and designing effective
relationships require staff time even
before actual project work begins.
Coordination across organizational
boundaries drives up staff costs. Some
arts partners chose non-arts partners
precisely because they were adept at
handling such logistical issues. But in
many other instances, these ?partnership
taxes? were unanticipated and serious,
and the funder did not provide
consensus among members at each
step, and the school system?s indifference
to the teacher training component
of the project proved fatal to the
partnership?s long-term viability.
Although a very good play was written
and performed, the partners abandoned
their efforts to develop a continuing,
school-based grief counseling
program centered on the arts.
Situational challenges most often concern
problems of communication, staff
turnover, and other issues that are
common to any type of project, not
just partnerships. These can be handled
readily with sufficient energy and
creativity on the part of the partners,
using communication, role clarification,
and accountability strategies.
Communication. Communication
problems were common in the
arts/non-arts partnerships in this
study. But as long as partners are genuinely
willing to work hard at collaboration,
certain strategies can help them
talk to each other more clearly. Better
communication can be achieved, for
example, by identifying more responsive
contact persons within partner
organizations, or by scheduling regular
meetings, in person or on the telephone,
to review project status.
Role Clarification. Some partnerships
got into trouble because partners
were unclear on responsibilities or who
would handle a particular project task.
The best way to avoid such ambiguity
is to map partner responsibilities to
specific goals and tasks at the time of
project development, well before any
work begins.
Accountability. Closely tied to clarity
about roles and responsibilities is
accountability for carrying out tasks.
While the lead agency as defined in
grant award documents is ultimately
responsible for successful completion
of the work, true accountability is
more broadly shared. This means,
among other things, that all partners
need to be clear on the full range of
tasks to be performed and the parties
responsible. Further, and related to the
communication issues noted above,
partners must have some way of
reporting on progress to one another.
CONFRONTING THE ?PARTNERSHIP TAX?
.
enough money to cover those
unplanned expenses.
The existence of this ?partnership tax?
on arts/non-arts partnerships contains
an added important message for public
and private funders seeking to promote
such cultural collaborations. Prospective
arts and non-arts partners are
legitimately wary of entering into ?bad
marriages? motivated mainly by grant
seeking and therefore likely to fail
when unanticipated costs
arise. If funders want to
encourage successful
and enduring partnerships
and the
public benefits they
convey, they need to
help identify, plan
for, and cover the full
range of expenses that
these partnerships are
likely to encounter.
Conclusion
Partnerships between arts and non-arts
organizations can confer benefits on
both parties if the benefits are mutual
and in accord with their respective
missions and if the potential risks and
costs are anticipated and addressed.
Non-arts agencies can gain fresh, highquality
programming that stimulates
new thought, activity, and involvement
among their constituencies. Arts and
cultural organizations can broaden
community awareness of their missions
and services, thus increasing the public
value of their activities and offerings.
Beyond that, such arts/non-arts collaborations
provide a further and more
enduring dividend for the participating
organizations and the communities
they serve. As arts and non-arts groups
accumulate skills and experience in
effective partnerships, additional possibilities
for productive collaborations
present themselves, leading to more
and better opportunities for people to
participate in cultural life.
Partnerships
between arts and
non-arts organizations can
confer benefits on both
parties if the benefits are
mutual . . . and the potential
risks and costs are
anticipated.
.
EVALUATION OF THE
COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS FOR
CULTURAL PARTICIPATION INITIATIVE
In January 1998, The Wallace Foundation commissioned the Urban Institute
to conduct a five-year evaluation of the CPCP initiative. The initiative is part
of the Foundation?s long-term commitment to support a range of cultural
organizations and private and public arts funders to enhance broad participation
and make the arts and culture an active part of people?s everyday lives.
This policy paper is one of a number of publications from the study, including
Reggae to Rachmaninoff: How and Why People Participate in Arts and Culture;
Cultural Collaborations: Building Partnerships for Arts Participation; Arts and
Culture: Community Connections; Arts Participation: Steps to Stronger
Cultural and Community Life; Participation in Arts and Culture: The Importance
of Community Venues and Partnerships Between Large and Small Cultural
Organizations: A Strategy for Building Arts Participation. Further publications
are planned, exploring the policy and practice implications for building arts
participation based on the CPCP evaluation. For additional information on
the CPCP initiative or to order or download other publications, visit The
Wallace Foundation web site, http://www.wallacefoundation.org.
COMMUNITY FOUNDATIONS
PARTICIPATING IN CPCP
The Boston Foundation
Community Foundation Silicon Valley
Community Foundation for Southeastern Michigan
Dade Community Foundation
East Tennessee Foundation
Greater Kansas City Community Foundation
Humboldt Area Foundation
Maine Community Foundation
New Hampshire Charitable Foundation
San Francisco Foundation

THE URBAN INSTITUTE
2100 M STREET, NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20037
PRSRT First Class
US Postage
PAID
Ridgely, MD
Permit No. 40
The Urban Institute
The Urban Institute is a nonprofit, nonpartisan policy research and educational organization established in Washington, D.C., in 1968. Its
staff investigates the social, economic, and governance problems confronting the nation and evaluates the public and private means to alleviate
them. The Institute disseminates its research findings through publications, its web site, the media, seminars, and forums.
Through work that ranges from broad conceptual studies to administrative and technical assistance, Institute researchers contribute to the stock
of knowledge available to guide decisionmaking in the public interest.
This report is a product of the Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy at the Urban Institute. For additional publications, visit http://cnp.urban.org.
The Wallace Foundation
The Wallace Foundation is an independent, national private foundation established by DeWitt and Lila Acheson Wallace, the founders of
The Reader?s Digest Association. Its mission is to enable institutions to expand learning and enrichment opportunities for all people. It
does this by supporting and sharing effective ideas and practices.
To achieve this mission, The Wallace Foundation has three objectives:
?Strengthen education leadership to improve student achievement
?Improve after-school learning opportunities
?Expand participation in arts and culture
For more information and research, please
visit http://www.wallacefoundation.org.
The Urban Institute
2100 M Street NW
Washington, DC 20037
Phone: 202-833-7200
Fax: 202-467-5775
E-mail: pubs@ui.urban.org
Web site: http://www.urban.org
The Wallace Foundation
Two Park Avenue, 23rd Floor
New York, NY 10016
Phone: 212-251-9700
Fax: 212-679-6990
E-mail: info@wallacefoundation.org
Copyright ? 2004
The views expressed are those of the authors
and do not necessarily reflect those of the
Urban Institute, its board, its sponsors, or
other authors in the series. Permission is
granted for reproduction of this document,
with attribution to the Urban Institute.
The Urban
Institute