<<

EVALUATION OF THE FOUNDATION PROGRAM NYC CULTURAL INNOVATION FUND October 2013 EVALUATION Financial support provided by Financial support provided NYC Cultural Innovation Fund Cultural Innovation NYC

The Program Program Foundation The Rockefeller

EVALUATION OFFICE EVALUATION

Rockefeller Foundation Rockefeller THE About Helicon Collaborative

Helicon Collaborative led the Evaluation Team for this project. Helicon is a research and con- sulting firm that collaborates with cultural organizations, funders, artists and other creative enterprises to make communities more vital, adaptive and just. The Evaluation Team was made up of Slover Linett Audience Research, Yancey Consulting and Nick Rabkin, who contributed to the research, data analysis and development of recommendations. The evaluation report was written by Holly Sidford, Alexis Frasz, Nick Rabkin and Lisa Yancey.

About the Rockefeller Foundation Evaluation Office

For more than 100 years, the Rockefeller Foundation’s mission has been to promote the well-be- ing of humanity throughout the world. Today, the Rockefeller Foundation pursues this mission through dual goals: advancing inclusive economies that expand opportunities for more broadly shared prosperity, and building resilience by helping people, communities and institutions prepare for, withstand and emerge stronger from acute shocks and chronic stresses. Committed to supporting learning, accountability and performance improvements, the Evaluation Office of the Rockefeller Foundation works with staff, grantees and partners to strengthen evaluation practice and to support innovative approaches to monitoring, evaluation and learning. THE Rockefeller Foundation Rockefeller EVALUATION OFFICE EVALUATION Conducted by: Helicon Collaborative, Slover Linett Audience Research, Yancey Consulting and Nick Rabkin

The contents of this report are the views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Rockefeller Foundation. © 2013, The Rockefeller Foundation Cover photo: ©Paseo by Casita Maria/Dancing in the Streets 5 3 6 11 11 51 15 15 17 31 13 21 21 21 12 18 16 19 35 27 59 45 36 36 39 30 20 35 7 9 v

11 1 to resilience of relevance xamples of Reference Terms Distinctive innovation grantees innovation Distinctive Phases of CIF profiles project Exemplary grant recipients Fund Cultural Innovation instruments Evaluation focused on low-income populations CIF projects CIF projects focused on public policy CIF projects CIF , Phase 2: 2010–2012 CIF grantee locations Grants by CIF goals E to four issue areas of relevance Examples CIF Theory of change, Phase 1: 2007–2009 to equity of relevance Examples CIF grantee organization types CIF grantee organization themes CIF project iv Lessons Recommendations Options for the future Distribution of CIF grants of CIF Performance Definition of terms Data sources Limitations of the evaluation Approach 6.1 6.2 6.3 5.1 5.2 4.4 4.2 4.3 4.1 Introduction Lessons, recommendations and options for the future recommendations Lessons, Purpose and objectives of the evaluation and objectives Purpose for the evaluation Context Methodology Main findings ANNEXES LIST OF TABLES OF LIST LIST OF FIGURES OF LIST BOXES OF LIST

Annex 1: Annex Table 2: Table Table 1: Table Annex 2: Annex 3: Annex 4: Annex 3: Table Table 4: Table Figure 2: Figure 4: Figure 5: Figure 2: Box 3: Box Figure 1: Figure 1: Box Figure 3: Figure 6: Figure

1. 6. Executive Summary Executive 2. 3. 4. 5. Preface

Table of contents Nancy MacPherson THE ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION ROCKEFELLER THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, EVALUATION DIRECTOR, MANAGING

THE ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION ROCKEFELLER THE ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, NYC OPPORTUNITES FUND OPPORTUNITES NYC DIRECTOR, ASSOCIATE The Rockefeller Foundation was an early investor in culturein investor early an was Foundation Rockefeller The achieve to innovation and both the environmental sustainability – in equity and senses of the term and field-wide – through Created Innovation Fund (CIF). its NYC Cultural in 2007, CIF has granted $16.3 million to support 99 efforts to leverage culture to achieve social innovation. As we prepared evident that, unlike many other to launch this evaluation, it became fields, there not a large is of evaluative literature body on the effectiveness and impact change. This was a finding of cultural innovation to achieve social of funds for the use identified beforein itself – one that we even started. the evaluation More evaluations of programs have been conducted supportto that seek arts in the innovation for the sake of arts,the degree but few have examined to which arts innovation funds have actually brought about the intended societal level changes. are team and the Foundation grateful to the Helicon Collaborative evaluation We us think throughIssue Lab for helping Center’s in a the framing of this evaluation learningway that contributes to the Foundation’s around its NYC Cultural Innovation wereWe not Fund, but also more generally to the field of culture for social change. in a position to undertake an evaluation of the impact that each of CIF’s 99 grants had learnon the lives of people. However we did substantial lessons from evaluating a portfolioawardedgrants of projectsindividual to thread common the on focusing by running through the portfolio – that of support for cultural innovation aimed at lever- aging social change towards greater equity. This effort revealed evaluative evidence of both incremental and disruptive innova- example, arethat, for tions organizationscultural helping ways of engaging find new members as co-authors of creativecommunities by enlisting community works and presenting artistic Other innovations supported work in unconventional venues. the sustainability of the cultural field through such means as piloting new revenue-gen- also revealedevaluation The erating models. moreof achieving the challenge a than diffuseat the portfolio impact have a pre-de level, without first designing the fund to - termined common framework. These lessons and others from goal or the evaluation are now being used in the new work of the Foundation to realize greater social impact. The work being informed by this evaluation includes our continued support to cultural hope OpportunitiesNYC the within change social of sake the for innovation We Fund. the findings of this evaluation may create value for other funders who are supporting innovations in culture for the sake of achieving social change. Edwin Torres

Preface

EVALUATION OF THE ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION PROGRAM NYC CULTURAL INNOVATION FUND iv EVALUATION OF THE ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION PROGRAM NYC CULTURAL INNOVATION FUND v advanced understanding of the need for cultural innovation in City cultural innovation in New York advanced understanding of the need for further and positioned the Rockefeller Foundation for leader- and nationally, ship in this sphere supportedvariety of innovative projects a wide reached that an estimated City and, via the Internet, thousands 400,000–500,000 people across New York more beyond expanded dialogue between cultural organizations and their communities supported an array of incremental innovations, helping cultural organizations experiment with new artistic programs and imaginative audience engage- ment strategies encouraged a more disruptive kind of cultural innovation by supporting projects that i) reflect the creative aspirations of low-income and minority people, and ii) contribute to the development of theory- and practice integrat ing the arts into efforts to achieve cultural equity and community resilience enabled a number of promising to be tested, many of which have ideas relevance future for the Rockefeller Foundation’s work. increasingly Foundation’s goals of equity and re aligned with the Rockefeller - silience, and its four focus areas securing livelihoods, revaluing – ecosystems, transforming cities advancing health and, most notably, City and its residents trended toward addressing challenges for New York rather than problems of the arts sector • • • • • • • • What came from it? What came from With the investment of approximately $2.7 million per year and part-time staff allocation, CIF has: Over the course of six years, CIF grants: Top findings Top it worth it? Was CIF supported a diverse portfolio and innovations of experiments, explorations Many by 86 different City. organizations cultural and community in New York of these projects would not have happened without the Rockefeller Foundation’s support, appear to have produced and most results valuable at the level of the organizations Available data make it difficult themselves. to be conclusive about but CIF projectsoverall impacts at the community level, there demonstrate that is untapped potential for the arts to contribute meaningfully to the Rockefeller the program is well run and view, Team’s Foundation’s goals. In the Evaluation the transaction costs for CIF are worthgains. the overall The Rockefeller Foundation launched the NYC Cultural Innovation Fund (CIF) in Innovation the NYC Cultural Foundation launched The Rockefeller then, it has supported2007. Since six rounds resulting of annual grantmaking, in York City. to 86 nonprofit99 grants organizations and community cultural New in Grants across $16.3 million. the six years 2007–2012 totaled the period Helicon Collaborative assessed CIF for headed by An Evaluation Team May 2013 based on TermsDecember 2012 to of Reference- issued by the Rock September 2012. efeller Foundation in

Executive summary By supporting smaller, 1 trended toward organizations, smaller and newer funding and organizations in the outer boroughs trended toward populations engaging low-income intentionally trendedtoward using creative artisticand change social to achieve practices goals. . National Committee on Responsive . Philanthropy. on Responsive and Social Change. National Committee H. 2012. Fusing Arts, Culture Sidford, http://www.ncrp.org/paib/arts-culture-philanthropy

• • • more community-based organizations, the Rockefeller Foundation is interrupting con- ventional views of the arts and the kinds of organizations that do worthy work in this arena. 1 What’s the opportunity forward? going What’s understand the largeroperates, it’s helpful to view New York context in which CIF To cultural sectors. The first is the moreCity as having two visible one, comprised of performingmuseums, arts presenters, artsand other theaters companies, groups – large and small – that create art works and present to the public. This them and a major con- City’s identity essential component of New York cultural sector is an With notable exceptions, most of these and cultural vitality. tributor to its economic cultural organizations work in art forms European tra- aesthetic rooted in Western ditions, and their audiences are predominantly well-educated people of middle and upper income. is far less visible and possesses far fewer The second cultural sector in New York resources. sector is focused on encouraging creative This expression or among, presenting the artistic and immigrant populations. It is traditions of, lower-income growinga of comprised organizations,cultural community-based of number social service organizations agencies, unions, social justice and artists that see the arts as an important component of their efforts to understand and redress social and economic inequities and build strength and resilience at the neighborhood level. This cultural about what artsector is challenging conventional ideas is and what role it plays in and intentionally engages people and issues that are not servedsociety, by traditional, prestigious cultural institutions. Over the past Both cultural sectors are important City. to the future of New York organizationssix years, CIF has assisted many cultural in the “first” cultural sector to explore innovations in the way they create and present artistic work and engage civic issues. On an innovation spectrum from incremental to disruptive, most of these projects have been largely incremental in nature, and the Rockefeller Foundation’s support for such groups has been an extension of its distinguished history of philan- thropy in the arts. CIF has also supported a growing number of organizations in the recognizing their philosophical alignment with the Rockefell- “second” cultural sector, er Foundation’s goals and validating the role of the arts in making communities more equitable and resilient. spectrum, On the innovation the program innovations of these groups tend to be further toward the disruptive end, and the Rockefeller Founda- The tion’s investment in them, in itself, is a distinctive innovation in arts philanthropy. recentfor the arts,study on the distribution of funding Fusing Arts, Cultureand Social Change, revealed that more than 55 percent of of all contributions go to just 2 percent all cultural organizations – those with budgets over $5 million.

EVALUATION OF THE ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION PROGRAM NYC CULTURAL INNOVATION FUND vi EVALUATION OF THE ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION PROGRAM NYC CULTURAL INNOVATION FUND vii The six years of CIF grantmaking have been a period of discovery have been a period of CIF grantmaking The six years as the Rockefeller exploredhas Foundation artsthe that ways the propelcan re and equity innovation, - position established a leadership Foundation has the Rockefeller silience. With CIF, in the emerging which it can build on and strengthen field of cultural innovation, in make a greater Foundation’s goals contribution to the Rockefeller coming years. To future,the in clearera needs CIF over- Foundation’s Rockefeller to the an explicit theoryarching strategy, change that supports of those desired impacts, and knowledge-captureand a plan for grantmaking that helps grantees achieve desired in ways that can inform while documenting their experiences outcomes and Based on CIF’s achievements, this reportencourage others. three sketches future make a modest adjustment Foundation’s consideration: i) options for the Rockefeller to the current program ii) use the arts design, as a “distinct innovation solution” that support Foundation’s commitment to continues the Rockefeller groundbreaking in- novation in various fields, and iii) reconfigure CIF as a laboratory to build the nascent field of Art and Social Change. ©Mary Miss Studio

viii EVALUATION OF THE ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION PROGRAM NYC CULTURAL INNOVATION FUND 1

2 1 The premiseThe was 3 By providing grants 4 Description of CIF – goal and intended outcomes Description of CIF – goal Background The Rockefeller Foundation. 2007. http://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/our-work/current-work/new-york- 2007. Foundation. The Rockefeller city/nyc-cultural-innovation-fund Memo to the Rockefeller Foundation Board, November 2007. November Foundation Board, Memo to the Rockefeller Several reports at that time, such as The Center for an Urban Future’s, Creative New York (2005) made the New York Creative for an Urban Future’s, time, such as The Center at that reports Several central importance to New York. case for the cultural sector’s

Since 2007, CIF has operated on an annual cycle of grantmaking. Between 2007 Since 2007, CIF has operated on an and 2012, CIF awarded 99 grants to 86 organizations, with a total expenditure of $16.3 million. 2 3 4 The stated intention of CIF at its launch in 2007 was to help maintain its City maintain in 2007 was to help New York The stated intention of CIF at its launch culture a time of and diversity” during “traditional role as a global capital of creativity, “tremendoustransformation”.social and demographic, economic, This report presents the findings of a formativeof the NYC Cultural Inno- evaluation December 2012 and May 2013. vation Fund (CIF) conducted between Cultural Innovation Fund was createdThe Rockefeller Foundation’s NYC in partas 2007 opportunityan of “recognizeto fund supportand the in innovation cultural arena and to strengthen the role City.” arts play in the life of New York focused on shaping the City’s cultural and civic agenda, providing financial support to innovative new artistic works, linking cultural and community organizations with uni- and alleviating bottlenecks to the expansion of cultural versities and the private sector, City’s role as a global sought to enhance New York the Rockefeller Foundation vitality, and strengthen its economic and cultural culture and diversity, center of creativity, vitality. Within the Rockefeller Foundation, there were other motivations for the creation of that New York City’s large and diverse community of arts that New York and cultural organizations is critical to the City’s overall health and international reputation. 1.2 1.1 Introduction Introduction

1. ©Mary Miss Studio Miss ©Mary The New 7 This emphasis 6 the artistic breadth and depth of institutions in the and the artistic breadth visual, performing arts and media partnerships and community-based that bring cultural and the private with universities institutions together sector longstanding designed to confront interventions of on the expansion bottlenecks and limitations and solutions. approaches cultural vitality with fresh • • • 5 The Rockefeller Foundation. 2007. Internal Foundation document: “Rockefeller Foundation New York City Foundation New York Internal Foundation document: “Rockefeller 2007. Foundation. The Rockefeller Fund”. Cultural Innovations Opportunities Fund, NYC P. Madonia, Rockefeller Foundation, personal communication, 2013 Madonia, Rockefeller P. The Rockefeller Foundation website, 2007. Foundation The Rockefeller

on innovation aligned with the Rockefeller Foundation’s evolving institutional priori- on innovation aligned with the Rockefeller ties. It also aligned with a growing realization among national arts and other leaders arts funders that the cultural sector needed to find innovative approaches to deal with including declining audiences, weak capitalization growing challenges to its viability, structures, and competition from commercial and technology-enabled entertainment alternatives. Foundation and the James For example, both the Doris Duke Charitable Irvine Foundation began innovation initiatives in the cultural sector around 2007– adopted 2008, and the Knight Foundation and Foundation subsequently some concepts from the CIF program. City OpportunitiesCIF was situated within the Rockefeller Foundation’s New York Fund, which was created “to respond to important civic priorities in the City and as a manifestation of the Rockefeller Foundation’s commitment to its home city.” 5 6 7 The Cultural Innovation Fund aimed to “catalyze cultural organizationsThe Cultural Innovation Fund aimed throughout the city to undertake innovative and path-breaking programming projects and that new pathways to creativity.” build the city’s cultural vitality and open CIF. The Rockefeller Foundation’s priorities were shifting under the leadership of Dr. Foundation’s priorities were The Rockefeller shifting under the leadership of Dr. CIF. presidentJudith Rodin, who had been appointed the decision in 2005. This included to close its Creativity & Culture program, an international program since operating Some of the Rockefeller City. before 2000 that had funded many groups in staff members also worried the arts that divesting entirely posed a risk to the Rockefeller Foundation’s reputation, position in given its historic leadership to the development of key cultural cultural funding and its significant contributions institutions in New York. York City Opportunities Fund is comprised of the OpportunitiesYork Fund, the creative engagement with the issues shaping New engagement with the issues shaping New creative civic agenda cultural and future City’s York of new artistic works premieres and programming new and can activate that demonstrate innovation directions BOX 1 Goal innovation and support programmatic recognize To will that and new opportunities cultural arena in the the arts play in the the role and advance strengthen City. of New York future Support for: • • CIF program goals 2007–2012 and strategies: CIF program

EVALUATION OF THE ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION PROGRAM NYC CULTURAL INNOVATION FUND 2 EVALUATION OF THE ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION PROGRAM NYC CULTURAL INNOVATION FUND 3 PHASE 2 PHASE people uncommon places diversity City’s presenters practice 2010–2012 $8.5 million $170,000 Edwin Torres 50 Refined goals (2010–2012) (not formally published) • Access to cultural institutions for poor and vulnerable including in cultural presentations • Innovations York New in cultural forms that reflect • Innovations • Engagement of the poor as co-authors and co- to influence policy and expression creative • Leveraging on grant support reliance that decrease • Innovations These individuals have provided These individuals have CIF staffadvice and with general 8 PHASE 1 PHASE Theory of change of CIF Lowery Sims stepped down as advisor in 2009 and Eungie Joo joined in 2011. Lowery

have offered grant proposals, comments on specific when requested. 8 The goals of the CIF program have remained constant since 2007, but the interpreta- of the Rockefeller Foundation’s overarchtion of these goals shifted with the evolution - ing priorities and a change in program officers. Initially focused on enhancing the role and status of the city’s arts over time CIF shifted toward enhancing results for sector, found that CIF had City residents itself. The Evaluation Team and the city New York two distinct phases, which corresponded the leadership of its two managers: with Phase 1, from from 2007 to 2009, operated under Joan Shigekawa, and Phase 2, 2010 to 2012, under Edwin Torres. 1 summarizes the two phases of CIF. Table Award and CIF, and supports other projects throughAward grants related CIF, and resil to building - economic equity. ience and Frombenefited from CIF has beginning, the the counsel of experts and in innovation the arts who were the program: asked to advise Lowery Curator at the Stokes Sims, Museum of Arts and Design and former President in Harlem; of the Studio Museum ViceThorpe, David President AndrewSapient; for Analysis and Strategy for Zolli, Z+Partnersof Founder Conference; Eungie and Pop!Tech annual of the Curator and Joo, former Keith Haring Director Programs and Curator of Education and Public at The New Museum. 1.3 new work structural challenges in the cultural sector 2007–2009 million $7.8 $156,000 Joan Shigekawa 49 Published goals (2007–2012) City civic issues facing New York • Addressing of or premieres artistic programs • Innovative • New partnerships constraints and • Strategies to overcome Phases of CIF Total disbursed Total grant Average officer Program grants Total Grant goals Years Years TABLE 1: 1: TABLE

As reflectedAs internal in interviews and documents staffRockefeller Foundation with the members, greater phase of CIF put the second on emphasis serving poor and vulnerable people, and engaging artsthe making more people diverse to accessible through presentations in unusual public places and recognizing the cultural diversity of New York City’s communities. This shift reflected the Rockefeller Foundation’s increasing on equity and resilience, focus on and populations. The attention to poor and vulnerable City’s populations of New York the cultural diversity recognizeto sought “marginalized per- the voices” – previouslywho people of aspirations and spectives had no place in the production or distribution of the arts.Torres’salso reflectedIt Edwin CIF manager between cultural organizationsdialogue that belief and audiences leads to greater relevance in cultural programming,particularly underservedfor groups. The evolving focus of the program was communi- ©Paseo by Casita Maria/Dancing in the Streets the in Maria/Dancing Casita by ©Paseo cated to applicants primarily through discussions with Torres, and through modifica- grant reports.tions to guidelines for applications and Logic model Logic CIF has operated without an explicit theory understand the evolution of of change. To used program create documents to a logic Evaluation Team the thinking behind CIF, model retrospectively for each of the two phases. Conversations with Torres helped clarify and refine how the theory of the program evolved. The two logic models (Figures 1 and 2) reflect the important shift that occurred strengthen CIF was primarily intended to New York between 2007 and 2012. Initially, City’s role as a cultural capital, but as the program evolved, it focused more on broad - participationand access ening artsthe in strengtheningand options for cultural the City residents and their neighborhoods. low-income New York

EVALUATION OF THE ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION PROGRAM NYC CULTURAL INNOVATION FUND 4

EVALUATION OF THE ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION PROGRAM NYC CULTURAL INNOVATION FUND 5

networking

for exposure and and exposure for

Cocktail reception reception Cocktail

of $2.6 million per year per million $2.6 of

Funding commitment commitment Funding

of grantees and awards and grantees of

NY Times announcement announcement Times NY

framework

oundation’s strategic strategic oundation’s F

vitality the Rockefeller Rockefeller the

expansion of cultural cultural of expansion operating outside outside operating

limitations on the the on limitations opportunity fund fund opportunity

to cultural vitality cultural to

bottlenecks and and bottlenecks expanded Flexibility Flexibility as an an as

to remove bottlenecks bottlenecks remove to

fresh solutions to to solutions fresh • vitality for NYC is is NYC for vitality

New insights about how how about insights New

or the private sector private the or Economic and cultural cultural and Economic

and culture and

orgs and universities universities and orgs

vitality (13) vitality experts on innovation innovation on experts

community-based community-based

and private sectors private and bottlenecks to cultural cultural to bottlenecks Advisory group group Advisory of of

between cultural or or cultural between

community, educational educational community, Confronted Confronted •

partnerships partnerships •

among cultural, cultural, among partnerships (1) partnerships

artistic work work artistic

edgy orgs edgy

Enhanced collaboration collaboration Enhanced Initiated cross-sector cross-sector Initiated •

premieres of new new of premieres

with individual artists, artists, individual with

(12)

programming or or programming

Joan Shigekawa’s Shigekawa’s Joan •

strengthened

Addressed civic issues issues civic Addressed •

innovative innovative •

organizations

the future of NYC is is NYC of future the

NYC projects)

NYC’s future NYC’s

with established established with

Role of the arts in in arts the of Role

cultural issues facing facing issues cultural innovations (24 (24 innovations

with issues shaping shaping issues with

Darren Walker’s Walker’s Darren •

to engage with civic and and civic with engage to

or program program or

creative engagement engagement creative •

cultural sector cultural

Increased use of the arts arts the of use Increased

Developed premiers premiers Developed •

involve:

Relationships with NYC NYC with Relationships

Grantee projects Grantee

Priority on projects that that projects on Priority

arts enhanced report

performing and media media and performing culture and diversity is is diversity and culture “Culture New York” York” New “Culture •

innovation innovation in the visual, visual, the in

capital of creativity, creativity, of capital culture

$160,000 per grant per $160,000

competitive selection competitive

deeper support for for support deeper

NYC’s role as a global global a as role NYC’s experience supporting supporting experience •

to 2009, averaging averaging 2009, to

Grantee proposals and and proposals Grantee

Wider recognition & & recognition Wider

Knowledge & research & Knowledge

$7.8 million million $7.8 from 2007 2007 from

49 grants totaling totaling grants 49

relationships

values, beliefs and and beliefs values,

and call for proposals for call and Foundation’s

CIF grant guidelines guidelines grant CIF

The Rockefeller Rockefeller The

STRATEGIES

RESOURCES OUTPUTS OUTCOMES IMPACTS

/ ACTIVITIES

CIF Theory of change, Phase 1: 2007–2009 1: Phase change, of Theory CIF FIGURE 1: 1: FIGURE

culture organizations

breakfasts

strategic value of arts & & arts of value strategic participating participating

at conferences, funder funder conferences, at

and supports the the supports and & credibility credibility & for for

Grantee presentations presentations Grantee

increasingly understands understands increasingly Added visibility visibility Added

Philanthropy community community Philanthropy

$2.8 million per year per million $2.8

Funding commitment commitment Funding

of of

Rockefeller Foundation Rockefeller

conversation & debate & conversation

Grantee reports reports Grantee to the the to

as catalysts for civic civic for catalysts as

arts experiences serve serve experiences arts • cultural scene cultural

and concerns and

vibrant and responsive responsive and vibrant framework

community’s identity identity community’s

due to a more robust, robust, more a to due

Foundation’s strategic strategic Foundation’s

grantee projects grantee

options reflective of of reflective options •

participation in, the arts arts the in, participation

the Rockefeller Rockefeller the

Implementation of of Implementation

choice in programming in choice

Broader access to, and and to, access Broader operating outside outside operating

Increased relevance and and relevance Increased

opportunity fund fund opportunity

Flexibility Flexibility as an an as

success success networking

communities vitality (10) vitality

a powerful engine of of engine powerful a vitality for exposure and and exposure for

orgs and audiences/ and orgs bottlenecks to cultural cultural to bottlenecks

because the arts are are arts the because adaptability and and adaptability Cocktail reception reception Cocktail

between cultural cultural between Confronted Confronted • cultural vitality for NYC NYC for vitality cultural that innovation drives drives innovation that •

More active dialogue dialogue active More partnerships (1) partnerships Greater economic and and economic Greater driver for NYC for driver

Initiated cross-sector cross-sector Initiated •

important economic economic important grantees and awards and grantees

(23)

that culture is an an is culture that • announcement announcement of of

Addressed civic issues issues civic Addressed •

Values & beliefs & Values NY Times Times NY

projects) because they feel valued feel they because (varies by grantee) by (varies

innovations (16 (16 innovations retention of artists artists of retention audience outcomes outcomes audience

or program program or community i community and culture and ncluding ncluding Project-specific Project-specific

Developed premiers premiers Developed • of NYC’s cultural cultural NYC’s of Nonprofit Finance Fund Finance Nonprofit experts on innovation innovation on experts

Grantee projects Grantee Advisory group group Advisory Better stewardship stewardship Better with support from from support with of of

competitive selection selection competitive

Grantee proposals and and proposals Grantee audiences

organizations & their their & organizations

report

grant

change

innovation innovation by grantee grantee by

“Culture New York” York” New “Culture

averaging $170,000 per per $170,000 averaging

and thrive in times of of times in thrive and

artistic & organizational organizational & artistic

culture

from 2010 to 2012, 2012, to 2010 from

better able to respond respond to able better call for proposals for call

More value placed on on placed value More

experience supporting supporting experience

million million becomes more adaptive, adaptive, more becomes CIF grant guidelines guidelines grant CIF

and and

Knowledge & research & Knowledge

50 grants totaling $8.5 $8.5 totaling grants 50 NYC arts ecosystem ecosystem arts NYC

STRATEGIES

RESOURCES OUTPUTS OUTCOMES IMPACTS

/ ACTIVITIES

CIF Theory of change, Phase 2: 2010–2012 2: Phase change, of Theory CIF FIGURE 2 2 FIGURE

EVALUATION OF THE ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION PROGRAM NYC CULTURAL INNOVATION FUND 6 EVALUATION OF THE ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION PROGRAM NYC CULTURAL INNOVATION FUND 7 2 categorize and analyze the grantmaking portfolio of CIF, taking into account the taking into account the portfoliocategorize and analyze the grantmaking of CIF, over time evolving focus and purpose of the CIF assess the relevance, effectiveness and influence of the grantmaking in relation to the evolving goals of the program more and the Rockefeller Foundation – equitable growth and resilience broadly inform the future work of the Rockefeller Foundation in arts innovation, social change and resilience equity, the Rockefeller Foundation and the field contribute to knowledge generation for by capturing lessons in cultural arts innovation, with specific relevance to equity, social resilience and social change. 1. 2. 3. 4. The purpose of this evaluation, outlined in the CIF Evaluation TermsThe purpose of this evaluation, outlined of Reference dated September 2012, is to: Findings and conclusions from the evaluation are intended to informthe strategy and future cultural innovation practice of the Rockefeller Foundation. As part of its commitment to knowledge-building in its fields of practice, the Rock- efeller Foundation provided financial support a to the Foundation Center to conduct synthesis reviewof relevant literature and evaluation studies in the field of cultural innovation. Titled “Key Lessons fromthe Field of Cultural Innovation”, it is the first in a series of such reviews the Rockefeller Foundation intends to provide for which financial support, in tandem with evaluations of its initiatives, to provide a broader understanding of the landscape within which the Rockefeller Foundation operates. Purpose and objectives and Purpose of the evaluation ©A White Wing Brushing the Building by Bowery Arts & Science/City Lore ©A White Wing Brushing the Building by Bowery Arts & Science/City

8 EVALUATION OF THE ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION PROGRAM NYC CULTURAL INNOVATION FUND 9 3 In the words of urban 10 This conceptualization of cultural innovation This conceptualization of cultural innovation 9 A small but important group leaders, researchers of cultural and Leading researchers in this movement include Bill Ivey, Maria-Rosario Jackson, Steven Tepper and Alika Wali. and Alika Tepper Jackson, Steven Maria-Rosario include Bill Ivey, in this movement researchers Leading . National Committee on Responsive Philanthropy. Philanthropy. on Responsive and Social Change. National Committee H. 2012. Fusing Arts, Culture Sidford, http://www.ncrp.org/paib/arts-culture-philanthropy

CULTURAL EQUITY. CULTURAL planner and noted researcher Maria-Rosario Jackson: is often connected with the idea of “cultural equity” and the use of the artsis often connected with the idea of “cultural to advance Lomax in the 1970s, cultural equity encom- social change. Coined by folklorist Alan passes efforts arts, to democratize the recognize the fullest spectrum of cultural tradi- tions and afford all people opportunities to express their creative voices actively. The concept of cultural equity has gained new currency in the past decade, as more funders, cultural leaders and artists have recognized the increasing demographic and cultural diversity of our country, and observe the power of the arts people to help address communities. This growing issues of inequality in their group of advocates for cultural equity asserts that communities of all kinds should have opportunities for creative expression, and that the current system of producing and distributing artsthe more in- established nonprofitthe in toward heavily tipped is sector larger, stitutions and higher income, predominantly white audiences. 9 10 A clear and shared definition of cultural innovation has not yet emerged in the arts resulta as attention gaining is concept the CIF as such initiatives of However, sector. the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation and and the work of other funders such as the James Irvine interviewsEvaluation Team’s Foundation. The with grantees and national leaders confirmed that the term “cultural innovation” has different meanings to different as any activity that is new to the people. Some view cultural innovation cultural organization being studied, while others view it as activity that has never been most, cultural innovation suggests a broad array To tried before in the cultural sector. of activities focused on new ways to create art or present and new ap- it to the public, proaches to the business models and financing structures of cultural organizations. theorists thinks about cultural innovation differently. For this group, cultural innova- differently. theorists thinks about cultural innovation about the roletion entails a fundamental shift in thinking from away of art in society, of artisticthe traditional institution-based paradigm excellence toward a more partici- patory, community-centered construct. Context for the evaluation for the evaluation Context

2. ©A White Wing Brushing the Building by Bowery Arts & Science/City Lore Science/City & Arts Bowery by Building the Brushing Wing White ©A

11 . Resilience is a relatively new concept in the cultural sector, but it is but . Resilience is a relatively sector, new concept in the cultural As we travel aroundwe travel As have found we resilient communities, looking at world the

Resilience depends on the ability to see ways out. Not a way out, but ways out, ways Resilience depends on the ability to see ways forward, ways ahead. That’s important to all of us throughout It’s about seeing life. possibilities and imagining pathways toward them. That kind of mental activity, artsthat kind of openness is modeled in the … projects that are extended, complex, as success risk failure as well and significance engage real-world questions of that (Shirley Brice Heath). are those that – paradoxically – experi- that many of the most resilient communities ence a lot of disruption. These communities typically have a strong shared, cultural memory their relationships, their preparedness, and of the past failure that shapes memorytheir understanding of risk. And that cultural is often transmitted through the arts – in stories, songs, sculptures, food traditions, and other means of expression (Andrew Zolli). Activity that is about cultural self-determination is about cultural Activity that - empowering, espe is incredibly one’s own history it has to do with expressing cially when one’s visions or aspirations, true This is especially for the future. historically that have been for communities … Participatingdemeaned or isolated. in the arts or as part as an individual of a group can have transformative effects on participants, leading to greater personal more stewardship civic engagement (Maria-Rosario of place and increased agency, Jackson).

Proponents include, for example, the work of Maria-Rosario Jackson. Andrew Zolli and Mark Stern of the and Mark Stern of Zolli Jackson. Andrew the work of Maria-Rosario include, for example, Proponents Fund; cultural policy and The Reinvestment Social Impact of the Arts Project of Pennsylvania University - pro development of the arts in youth work on the value Brice Heath’s and Shirley Tepper, Steven researcher grams.

RESILIENCE The following excerpts from our interviews with youth development expert Shirley Brice Heath and futurist Andrew Zolli capture this viewpoint well. 11 gaining traction. A growinggaining traction. A body of research is demonstrating that artsand culture can be critical partners deal with sustained stress, in helping communities trauma kinds. The proponentsand upheaval of various view see the arts of this as an making important capital and community flexibility, tool in helping develop social community residents – particularly young people – more and creative. adaptive

EVALUATION OF THE ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION PROGRAM NYC CULTURAL INNOVATION FUND 10 EVALUATION OF THE ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION PROGRAM NYC CULTURAL INNOVATION FUND 11 4

12 interviews with knowledge of philanthropy, national leaders local and nine with innovation and resilience review synthesis the to contributions the by conducted innovation cultural on Foundation Center. memoranda and other program of the Rockefeller Foundation documents grantee applications grantee interim and final reports grantee websites review of CIF program grant summaries and internal documents, reports interviews Foundation senior staff with 11 of the Rockefeller interviews16 grantees from with groups86, including a total of reflecting different organizational budget sizes, city boroughs, purposes, artistic disciplines and CIF program goals analysis of the complete CIF grant portfolio (Annex 3 includes a list of the grants) review of grantee websites for evidence that CIF projects were sustained beyond the grant period or influenced other programs of the grantees representto models logic two of development programthe of intentions initial the and its evolution electronic survey of all CIF organizationsto submit full applications (470 invited organizations surveyed, 124 respondents) Of the 124 respondents, 68 were grantees (68 percent of possible grantee respondents) and 56 non-grantee grantee respondents) of possible grantees (68 percent 68 were Of the 124 respondents, rate is high and suggests The grantee response non-grantee respondents). of possible applicants (14 percent grantee pool. of the overall representative are results the survey • • • • • • • • • • • • • Evaluation instruments, including surveys, interview protocols and portfolio analysis criteria, can be found in Annex 4. 4.2 Data sources Key data sources included: 12 4.1 Approach elements: The CIF evaluation included the following Methodology 3. 13 Grantee reports focus on the activi- Grantees used the terms “impact” and

INCONSISTENT USE OF TERMINOLOGY. OF USE INCONSISTENT LACK OF DATA ON OUTCOMES AND IMPACTS. IMPACTS. AND OUTCOMES ON DATA OF LACK “outcome” inconsistently, making comparisons difficult “outcome” inconsistently, and holistic portfolio analysis challenging. interviews with grantees interviews Foundation staff with Rockefeller surveyapplicant interviews leaders. with national type of organization size of organization date of grant size of grant location of grantee project focus related to CIF goals project focus related goals and issue areas to the Rockefeller Foundation project focus related Foundation’s definition of innovation. to the Rockefeller ties that organizations undertook during their grant periods, rather than on the City, the vitality of New York outcomes or impacts on the larger cultural sector, or poor and vulnerable populations. Grantees provided information on their researchplanning and programspublic activities, the sponsored,and events they the websites they launched, the artists they worked with, the funds they raised, and other grant-funded accomplishments. Applicants were not asked to submit the theories of change in their proposals, and the Rockefeller Foundation’s grant report forms did not specifically request information on external impacts until 2012.

. Review Social Innovation The Stanford 100 Years”, for the Next “Innovation J. 2013, Summer. Rodin

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • The portfolio parameters: examined CIF grantees along the following analysis members reviewed all final reportsEvaluation Team from completed CIF grants, interim reportsfrom that had not yet filed finalgrants those CIF reports, applica- and tions from 2012 grants without any reports. members In addition, Evaluation Team reviewed press releases and internal regarding memos grants, and summary outputs Edwin outcomes fromand manager, CIF 2011 CIF grantees compiled by 2010 and Torres,members also reviewed the Rock- selected publications by in April 2013. Team by , efeller Foundation staff, including Innovation for the Next 100 Years, published in the Stanford Social Innovation Review. 13 4.3 Limitations of the evaluation encountered an importantTeam In conducting its work, the Evaluation limiting factor in fully addressing the Terms of Reference. The Rockefeller Foundation does not requiregrantees to report CIF on outcomes or impacts. This limits the extent to which have occurred can assess the changes that the Evaluation Team as a result an indi- of vidual CIF grant or the portfolio as a whole.

EVALUATION OF THE ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION PROGRAM NYC CULTURAL INNOVATION FUND 12 EVALUATION OF THE ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION PROGRAM NYC CULTURAL INNOVATION FUND 13 Often recombinant, it is a hybridization of existing elements A new product,process or service that is discontinuous from previous Capacity of individuals, communities and systems to survive, Capacity of individuals, communities adapt and Equality of opportunity to achieve equality of circumstance. SOCIAL INNOVATION: SOCIAL INNOVATION: RESILIENCE: EQUITY: practice and yields new pathways for solving acute problemspractice and yields new pathways for solving or fulfilling a mission. that are combined across boundaries in new ways to yield better solutions, leaving healthier social relationships in their wake. 4.4 Definition of terms4.4 Definition resilienceand innovation cultural about thinking Foundation’s Rockefeller The has and its definitions of some key termsevolved since 2007, werenot available to ap- For the purposes of consistency and until relativelyplicants and grantees recently. used the following defi- evaluation’s Termsalignment with the of Reference, the Team nitions offered Foundation at the start by the Rockefeller of the evaluation. Interviewswith Edwin Torresand conversations with grantees provided additional grantees, but there by selected on outcomes achieved perspective is no comprehen- or the full portfolio. CIF grants the impacts of individual sive data on grow even stronger in the face of stress and change. ©Paseo by Casita Maria/Dancing in the Streets ©Paseo

14 EVALUATION OF THE ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION PROGRAM NYC CULTURAL INNOVATION FUND 15 While 14 5 - organiza categorization of the Team’s Evaluation from the self-identification differs respondents’ The survey from of organizations suggested that 29 percent analysis tions for the early cohort (2007–2009). The Team’s is that the non- for this discrepancy explanation One possible not primarily arts organizations. this cohort are Economic Overall York, Bronx in the first cohort – such as the Alliance for Downtown New arts organizations request. to the survey likely to respond less Management Association – were Square and Times Development DISTRIBUTION OF GRANTS BY TYPE OF INSTITUTION OF TYPE BY GRANTS OF DISTRIBUTION 14 More than two-thirds (68 percent) of CIF grants and grant funds (67 percent) went of CIF grants and grant funds (67 percent) (68 percent) than two-thirds More The balance supported and arts service organizations. presenters to arts producers, planning and social justice, urban by community development, sponsored projects organizations. environmental An analysis of the CIF grant portfolio shows that just over 50 percent of grants and artsgrant funds went to producers and presenterssuch as performing arts groups and museums. Approximately 18 percent of grants and 17 percent of the grant funds went to arts service organizations, and approximately 34 percent of grants and grant funds were development, social justice, urban planning, envi- allocated to community ronmental and other kinds of organizations. Figureprimarythe shows 3 organizationsgrantee the of purpose Evalu- the on based reading of grant reportsation Team’s and review websites. of grantee 99 percentIn the survey of organizations to the CIF, that submitted full applications of the grantee respondents from the early cohort (2007–2009) defined themselves as nonprofit arts presenting, producing or arts service organizations (n=30). 5.1 Distribution of CIF grants Between 2007 and 2012, CIF awarded $16.3 million through 99 two-year grants to 86 organizations in six grant cohorts. Grants ranged from $25,000 to $250,000; the reviewsaverage grant was $214,000. This section CIF grants by the distribution of type of institution, borough, size and age of grantee organization, and the focus of the CIF grant project. Finding 1 ✓ ✓ Main findings and lessons and Main findings

4. ©Paseo by Casita Maria/Dancing in the Streets the in Maria/Dancing Casita by ©Paseo

- 2 5 Other 3 Enironmental 2 Urban 3 planning 2010-2012

4 15 2 Social justice 6 4 2007-2009 Community development 8 10 Arts service CIF GRANTEE ORGANIZATION TYPES ORGANIZATION GRANTEE CIF 25 25 Of the Manhattan grants, 45 reached general New York City audiences and 14 targeted specific neighbor City audiences and 14 targeted general New York 45 reached Of the Manhattan grants, hoods in Manhattan, such as Harlem, Chelsea or Chinatown. Several reached other boroughs in addition to other boroughs reached hoods in Manhattan, such as Harlem, Chelsea or Chinatown. Several - of the grants made to organi many Similarly, . two reached and the Bronx Manhattan – two reached the immediate neighborhood of the grantee. audiences beyond reached zations based in the outer boroughs

FIGURE 1: FIGURE GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF GRANTS OF DISTRIBUTION GEOGRAPHIC CIF grants were awarded to organizations in all five boroughs of New York City. A York City. of New boroughs in all five to organizations awarded CIF grants were - by organiza sponsored were of funded projects significant majority (63 percent) followed of total grant funds, 66 percent received tions based in Manhattan. They Queens (10 percent), Bronx (21 percent), in Brooklyn by grants to organizations and Staten Island (1 percent). (4 percent) 15 a majority of the later (2010–2012) cohort (63 percent) also defined themselves this more than a third (37 percent) their organizational defined focus otherwiseway, – environment/conservationas community development, social justice, This other. or reflects away from CIF the focus of the of shift overall the projects primarily related to advancing the interests of arts institutions and toward projects arts that use the as a means to achieve broader community goals. Finding 2 Figurerepresents4 the of analysis an on based grants of distribution geographic the grant portfolio and results of the applicant survey. or producer Arts presenter Arts presenter

5

0

15 10 35 25 30 20 40

Number of grants of Number ✓ ✓

EVALUATION OF THE ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION PROGRAM NYC CULTURAL INNOVATION FUND 16 EVALUATION OF THE ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION PROGRAM NYC CULTURAL INNOVATION FUND 17

1 Staten Island 2 2 Queens 2010-2012 6 Bronx 4 15 6 2007-2009 Brooklyn 27 36 Manhattan CIF GRANTEE LOCATIONS GRANTEE CIF

FIGURE 2: FIGURE SIZE AND AGE OF GRANTEES OF AGE AND SIZE $50 million. In the early cohort, 18 percent of organizations (9 of 49 grants) had budgets under $1 million compared with 54 percent of the later cohort (26 of 50 grants). CIF grantees ranged from organizations in existence for less than three years to more than 150 years. About a third (31 percent) of grantees in the early cohort were founded after 1990, whereas 75 percent of the later cohort were founded after 1990. Of the later cohort, 44 percent were founded since 2000. These data are in CIF’s focus toward in line with the shift moreor- community-based ganizations and groupsboroughs, in the outer which tend to be smaller and younger. Finding 3 both the size and age of grantees between the two a shift in revealed The survey in the later cohort. organizations smaller and younger toward cohorts, size fromOverall, CIF grantees ranged in budget more less than $500,000 to than 5

0

15 10 35 25 30 20 40 Number of grants of Number ✓ ✓ 1 New partnerships 10 13 2010-2012 Confronting Confronting bottlenecks to cultural vitality 23 NYC issues NYC 12 Engagement with 2007-2009 16 24 Premieres Premieres & program & program innovation GRANTS BY CIF GOALS CIF BY GRANTS FIGURE 5: 5: FIGURE DISTRIBUTION OF GRANTS BY CIF GOALS CIF BY GRANTS OF DISTRIBUTION Finding 4 Finding to three-quarters with close with CIF goals, well aligned were The funded projects new artisticof premieres or goals:CIF two programming on focusing grants the of made new Only 2 percent City. shaping New York civic issues work and addressing of their grant. purpose partnerships and alliances a key 40 percentOverall, grant projects of premieres new work, grants) focused on of 99 (40 or program according innovations, to a review of grant reports. These ranged from a concert among Afro-Caribbean, series featuring musical collaborations hip-hop jazz, and reggae music at Carnegie to a festival of African American musicians Hall. In addition, 34 percent of the projects focused on using the arts to address issues as gentrification, immigration, urban design and such City, shaping New York community redevelopment, while 23 percent of grant projects focused on bottlenecks in the arts such as the economics of small theater productions system, or the dif- Many projectsYork. ficulties artists involved due to the expense of living in New face multiple partnersand alliances, but only 2 percent made new partnerships and alliances a key purpose of the grant. Figure the primary 3 shows the categorization of CIF grants based on purpose of each project relativeto CIF’s published goals.

5

0

15 10 35 25 30 20 40

Number of grants of Number ✓ ✓

EVALUATION OF THE ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION PROGRAM NYC CULTURAL INNOVATION FUND 18 EVALUATION OF THE ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION PROGRAM NYC CULTURAL INNOVATION FUND 19 GRANTS RELEVANT TO THE ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION’S FOUNDATION’S ROCKEFELLER THE TO RELEVANT GRANTS CIF AREAS FOCUS FOUR AND GOALS SHIFT IN PROGRAM FOCUS BETWEEN CIF GRANTEE COHORTS GRANTEE CIF BETWEEN FOCUS PROGRAM IN SHIFT Finding 6 goals of equity and resilience Foundation’s the Rockefeller CIF grantees addressed objectives equitythat included CIF grants and resilience areas. its four focus and grantees focused In the focus areas, evolved. significantly as the program increased - liveli and securing ecosystems on transforming cities followed by revaluing mostly health. Only one focused on advancing hoods. overarchingFoundation’s Rockefeller The resilience)and (equity goals focus four and areas (transform cities, secure revalue livelihoods, ecosystems, advance health) have review of grant the Evaluation Team’s However, been delineated relatively recently. reports shows that approximately49 percent of CIF projects have addressed the goals of equity and resilience and 66 percent have addressed at least one of the four focus areas. Figure 6 represents the distribution of grantee projects across the Rockefeller Foun- areas.focus and four goals dation’s projectsof CIF number shows the It with dealing and later cohortequity doubled between the early issues of (from9 to 18), and the number of projects dealing with resilience rose fivefold (from 3 to 13). The number of City increased by 37 percent (from 19 to 26), projects focused on improving New York and the number focused on ecosystems increased sixfold (from 1 to 6). These shifts 5.2 Performance NYC Cultural Innovation Fund of the performanceThe following section assesses the of the CIF program, providing evaluation’s Termsanswers to the questions outlined in the of Reference (see Annex categories: five in fall findings These 1). relevance, distinctive (including effectiveness impact. innovations), efficiency, influence and of CIF Findings – Relevance Finding 5 Finding using the emphasis toward The later cohort project of grants (2010–2012) shifted grants focused on art City and away from arts issues shaping New York to engage innovations. and arts program premieres 49 percentIn the first period, supported of grants (24 of 49 grants) premieres and arts programpercent32 only but innovations cohortlater the in those of 50 grants) of (16 In the second phase, 46 percentwent to these purposes. of grants focused on using whereas in the first three years, City, the arts York to engage issues shaping New only 24 percent this purpose. These data are of the grants had gone to with consistent other indicators reflecting CIF’s shift from on the needs of the arts a focus sector to a greater community orientation. ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 13 20 None Health 6 1 Ecosystems 5 9 Livelihoods 26 2010-2012 19 Cities 5 0 15 10 35 25 30 20 40 15 35 Neither 2007-2009 4 2 Both 13 3 CIF PROJECT THEMES PROJECT CIF Resilience 18 9 DISTINCTIVENESS AND RELEVANCE OF CIF TO THE GRANTEES THE TO CIF OF RELEVANCE AND DISTINCTIVENESS clearly reflect Eddie Torres’clearly reflect Eddie efforts to elevate these themes in the CIF program and his work with applicants and grantees. Examples of these projects, the variety of ap- shown in Boxes 1, 2 and 3, illustrate proaches used. Finding 7 cultural to the majority of grantees because it provides distinctive CIF is increasingly which is highly relevant innovation, with “risk capital” for early-stage organizations to their aims and needs. A majority of survey respondents (53 percent) indicated that the opportunity to get support to innovate, try new approaches or conduct a type of work not supported elsewhere feature was the most appealing of the CIF grant, surpassing even “the The results become moremoney” as an answer choice in the survey. pronounced for the second cohort, where 80 percent said the opportunity to innovate was the most surveyOne grants. their of factor valuable respondent expressed of sentiments the other grant programs stating that “few in the artsmany, encourage this kind of risk- taking.” Another respondent noted, “The grant helped us establish a new project that are to case solid a make to position a in now We understand. didn’t funders most funders who are as CIF.” not as innovative Equity FIGURE 4: 4: FIGURE

5 0

15 10

35 25 30 20 40 Number of grants of Number ✓ ✓

EVALUATION OF THE ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION PROGRAM NYC CULTURAL INNOVATION FUND 20 EVALUATION OF THE ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION PROGRAM NYC CULTURAL INNOVATION FUND 21 ’s project on urban project Society’s Wildlife Conservation CUNY’s and of the New systems Atlas environmental of CIF grants relating examples are Environment York to natural ecosystems. ’ partnership and with the Industrial Harvestworks artists’ to develop Assistance Corporation Technology efforts to and ArtHome’s ventures, entrepreneurial and individual development establish microloans to of grants relating examples accounts for artists are sustainable livelihoods. Casita Maria, Caribbean Cultural Center, Women’s Women’s Casita Maria, Caribbean Cultural Center, Corporation, Housing and Economic Development El Puente and others made the cultural history of their neighborhoods integral to their strategies and arts-based for local economic re-development – making specific communities more entrepreneurship the arts. through resilient Museum of Contemporary Diasporan Art: African African-rooted of raised the profile CIF projects Two made public housing and sites in Brooklyn culture and community arts events for large-scale venues festivals. techniques filmmaking Ghetto Film School: Taught and helped in the to low-income teens thus their own films and video projects, them produce people have the only access these young providing to such artmaking techniques and pre-professional training in arts production. • • • • • Urban online magazine ’s League Architectural public art Omnibus, and the Friends of the High Line’s focused on enhancing of projects examples are project engagement with and people’s urban infrastructure urban spaces. Provided training in EmcArts Lab: Provided Innovation of 31 cultural techniques to a group innovation to including a cohort of CIF grantees, organizations, capacity. enhance their adaptive In the Footprint , a play The Civilians: Produced about the with neighborhood residents developed Yards the Atlantic economic and political struggle over in Brooklyn. project redevelopment BOX 3 BOX 2 BOX 1 Examples of relevance to four focus areas to four focus areas of relevance Examples to dealt with issues related Nearly half of CIF projects The four issue areas. at least one of the Foundation’s to issues related majority of these (31) addressed vast Cities. Transforming • Twelve CIF grant projects addressed resilience. CIF resilience. addressed CIF grant projects Twelve i) in one of two ways: resilience bolstered projects of New of the arts ecosystem enhancing the resilience of arts in making the role City or ii) strengthening York resilient. specific communities more • Examples of relevance to resilience to resilience of relevance Examples Twenty CIF projects addressed themes related to themes related addressed CIF projects Twenty did this by focusing They community and cultural equity. cultures non-Western that reflect on cultural programs Asia, Africa, (the arts of immigrant populations from a means Middle East), providing Latin America and the access to people without ready of cultural production and illuminate the to it, or using the arts to explore City. challenge of equityYork in New • Examples of relevance to equity relevance of Examples MOTIVATION OF GRANTEES OF MOTIVATION Finding 8 grantee both across projects CIF grantees’ for important motivation most The to followed by desires their community in new ways to serve cohorts was the desire a challenging problem started and to explore kind of work already a forward move City. for their community or New York surveyof majority vast The respondents percent)(91 reported desirethe that serveto their community in new ways was a very important motivator for their CIF projects. Organizations in the second cohort were more motivated strongly by the desire to In the second City. explore problem a challenging for their community or New York cohort, 90 percent reported this as a very important compared with 73 motivator, percent in the first cohort. These findings reinforced other data that also indicated fromaway CIF’s focus in shift the arts innovations in programming toward and innova- tions serving City residents and neighborhoods. Grantee interviews reinforced the shift revealed in the survey to and added nuance of it. A 2009 CIF grant to the Alliance of Resident Theaters/NY is a good example addressing arts a challenge facing the The project supported sector. research- on in novative ways to reduce production theater costs and develop cooperative manage- ment systems for small theater groups. “The operating model for nonprofit theater is In interviews, grantees expressed a number of appreciation Foun- for the Rockefeller recognition,dation’s previously not had they that noting funders national to access had As one survey the Rockefeller Foundation. been funded by and had never respondent years of the CIF grant programput it, “The last few brought have support and valida- organizationstion to a lot of smaller doing really is often under innovative work that press as well as artsthe radar of the traditional and audiences.” community, funding In interviews, leaders commented that cultural organiza both grantees and national - become moreto to innovate need tions relevantfuture.the adaptive in and Several interviews supported the survey’s findings on the importance of risk capital and the resources to innovate, observing the way artists that old paradigms about and cultural the groups operate are in demographics, technology, being challenged by shifts arts and the way people interact with and culture;economy, and that new approaches are required to respond cultural to these developments. Several suggested that the to community equity and resiliencesector must make meaningful contributions if it is to remain relevant. They also noted that promising practices are being developed difficult,of work is kind this but arts conventional for especially groups. cultural As infrastructure put it, “The policy researcher Steven Tepper we’ve developed is about supporting professional artists managers in presenting and arts. excellent It’s good you think deeply about the public interestfor people to have access to that. But when in the arts, the criteria and we need new approaches it changes to make the arts more relevant to more and different people.”

✓ ✓

EVALUATION OF THE ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION PROGRAM NYC CULTURAL INNOVATION FUND 22 EVALUATION OF THE ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION PROGRAM NYC CULTURAL INNOVATION FUND 23 CIF HAS RAISED THE VISIBILITY OF CULTURAL INNOVATION INNOVATION CULTURAL OF VISIBILITY THE RAISED HAS CIF WITH AND SECTOR CULTURAL CITY YORK NEW THE WITHIN FUNDERS ARTS NATIONAL Finding 9 and the need to support CIF has drawn attention to the issue of cultural innovation the cultural sector. practices in innovative officers foundation five All interviewed Team Evaluation the that staff (senior foun- at California, wereMassachusetts) and Ohio aware CIF of City, York New in dations York program the about ads Times awards. New the mentioned specifically two and Grantee interviews indicated that CIF is broadly visible in the nonprofit cultural sector, Findings – Effectiveness the portfolio level At broken,” according Director Alliance’s Executive to the Virginia (Ginny) Louloudes. “The problems are Our costs are systemic. not just income is fixed. It’s rising and our problem,an economic work, we areuntil we make the model but in trouble.” the FoundryCIF’s 2010 grant to Theater reflects toward CIF’s shifting emphasis ad- “The artsdressing for a neighborhood challenges or struggling are vital to community. social change,” according to the Foundry’s artistic Melanie Joseph. “Not only director, art that carries a social change message but art imagine and that works to help people prefigure the more just world we struggleWith its CIF grant, Joseph reported, for.” the Foundry Economic Equality – mostly with Families United for Racial and “worked American families – on creatingCaribbean and African new work, including an adapta- Depression-eraa Needles, and Pins of tion Broadway revue producedoriginally the by that participantsILGWU. The parallel eras – 1930s and 2010s – made between the two and the continuing struggle to make the world better was very powerful. In the social justice sector you see a lot of work on ‘prefiguration,’the future the idea of living now. That’s what we do in the arts, too, but we too rarely make connections with the social justice movement. There is powerful chemistry it happens.” when Overall, just over half (55 percent) of grantees reported that engaging low-income people in art was an important activities motivation for their CIF project. There also was a significant difference the cohorts, between with 64 percent in the first cohort reporting this was very important but 43 percent in the second cohort. This data point is at odds with other information regarding the shift in CIF’s emphasis toward difficultengaging low-income people, and it is to explain. It may be that the way that the survey worded: choice was to engage low-income people in art “we wanted activi- the ways that organizationsties” may not have fully encompassed cohort in the later wereinherentan was motivation this that possible also is It communities. engaging part of these organizations’ programming, and not a motivation for a particular project. cohort this motivation ranked seventh for the early However, and ninth for the later cohort, that it was not one of the most important suggesting for either motivators cohort. ✓ ✓ and the Rockefeller 16 CIF goals: i) addressing civic issues facing New York City, ii) innovative artistic programs or premieres of new or premieres artistic programs ii) innovative City, civic issues facing New York CIF goals: i) addressing constraints and structural challenges in the cultural work, iii) new partnerships and iv) strategies to overcome sector. GRANTEES UNCLEAR ABOUT THE ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION’S FOUNDATION’S ROCKEFELLER THE ABOUT UNCLEAR GRANTEES INNOVATION OF DEFINITION GRANTEES SUPPORTED CIF GOALS INDIVIDUALLY BUT THERE THERE BUT INDIVIDUALLY GOALS CIF SUPPORTED GRANTEES GRANTEES AMONG CONNECTION LITTLE WAS Foundation’s overarching aims of equity and resilience. Applicants interpreted CIF goals differently, and each pursued a distinct project in a relativeTheir distinct context. or collective impacts are therefore difficult to discern. While grantee interviews suggested that some CIF grantees were aware of other CIF projects, to achieve they had little interaction with each other and did not collaborate greater impact. 16 Finding 11 unclear about the were reported that they respondents A significant portion of definition of innovation. Foundation’s Rockefeller Overall, 40 percent of all applicants and grantees that responded to the survey reported Rockefeller Foundation’s definition of innova- that they had a clear understanding of the tion, and only 34 percent clearly understood the criteria the Foundation uses to make grant decisions. The later cohort of grantees was less clear about the definition than the early cohort – 57 percent of the later cohort reported they were unclear compared to 41 percent cohort. in the first Unsuccessful applicants from the first cohort reported a very low level of understanding (just 22 percent had a clear understanding), while un- fromapplicants successful cohortsecond the reported understandingof level higher a (50 percent) grantees from than successful that cohort (41 percent). fromComments percent20 surveythe of respondents observationsand multiple in grantee interviews relateda lack of clarity about what the Rockefeller Foundation to struggled with the definition of innovation, which is not considers innovation. “We clear in the guidelines,” said one. “The Rockefeller Foundation has a very defi- specific “which is not what one would intuitively imagine nition of innovation,” said another, the word Several respondents to mean.” expressed- confusion about what was innova Finding 10 and there them differently each pursued However CIF goals. All grantees pursued impact. amongwas little connection for broader grantees CIF has seeded a broad in the area test bed of experiments and explorations of cultural supportedgrantees CIF indicate, above data As innovation. Rock- the of goals the efeller Foundation, addressing the four different initiative goals and many creditedand many in raising awareness for leadership Rockefeller Foundation the of field. One surveyfor innovation in this the need “CIF has respondent commented, importantbecome an part City.” arts of the York ecology in New

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

EVALUATION OF THE ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION PROGRAM NYC CULTURAL INNOVATION FUND 24 EVALUATION OF THE ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION PROGRAM NYC CULTURAL INNOVATION FUND 25 MOST DISTINCTIVE INNOVATIONS DISTINCTIVE MOST CIF INNOVATIONS RANGE FROM “COMPLETELY NEW” TO TO NEW” “COMPLETELY FROM RANGE INNOVATIONS CIF Finding 13 In the context of the Rockefeller Foundation’s goals, the most distinctive innovations in the CIF portfolio were projects that effectively focused on building community resilienceand equity projects),(10 projectsand to theory,contributing practice and information about the role of arts in equity and resilience (11 projects). At the individual grantee level At Finding 12 the CIF grant indicated that respondents survey of grantee 46 percent Overall, organizations. work that was completely new to their allowed them to do cohortGrantees in the early were more say their grants allowed them to likely to percent)do work that was completely new (54 than groups in the later cohort (40 percent). Nearly two-thirds of grantee organizations that are not primarily arts organi- percent)(62 zations reported organizatheir for new something do to grant the using - tions, compared to 44 percent of arts presenters and 36 percent of arts service orga- percent94 artsof However, nizations. presenters projectCIF their said something did that was new for the arts sector. Approximately one-quarter (27 percent) grantee survey of the respondents in both cohortshad done in but similar to something that they project said that their was new, the past. Another quarter of all grantee respondents said that the grant enabled them to increase the scope or scale of something that they had already started. Groups in cohortlater the were grantees of more projectsCIF their say to likely supported an increasepre-existingof scope or scale in groupsthan work cohortearly the in (30 percent vs. 19 percent). Qualitative information from interviews with grantees provides a more nuanced picture about the degree of originality of the CIF projects. Most of the grantees interviewed projects acknowledged that their were grounded in prior work. Even unusual projects, such as the Wildlife Conservation Society’s (WCS’s) web-based grewfor example, earlier out of WCS’s City, New York map of ecological interactive Harbor before the arrivalresearch of Henry on New York the Hudson. Similarly, Casita Maria Center for Arts and Education’s innovative idea to collaborate with Dancing in the Streets the arts and integrate into its neighborhood economic and community development efforts has built on the community center’s historic pro- gramming in the arts. tive about some of the CIF projects,tive about they were suggesting worthy but not especially groundbreaking. “INCREASING SCALE OR SCOPE OF EXISTING PROGRAM” EXISTING OF SCOPE OR SCALE “INCREASING ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ incubating , developing a city-wide launching an online magazine to track launching an online magazine to track emphasizing the role of artists in community development developing a long-term collaboration with a dance organiza- , a New York-based theater company collaborating with com- theater company collaborating , a New York-based , a public policy organization,public a , researchconducting ways that on the - develop residentsmunity produceand to write Yards Atlantic the about play a ment project a cross-cultural performance with residents series in an affordable housing project in the Bronx. arts and culture contribute to urban economies that will support cultural and civic activism and policy change. ARCHITECTURAL LEAGUE OF NEW YORK NEW OF LEAGUE ARCHITECTURAL CENTER DESIGN AND MANUFACTURING GREENPOINT DEMOS CASITA MARIA CASITA MUSEUM QUEENS CORPORATION DEVELOPMENT ECONOMIC AND HOUSING WOMEN’S THE CIVILIANS THE tion to involve local residents in producing programs illustrating the cultural legacy of the South Bronx network of Naturally Occurring Cultural Districts that reflect the cultural City neighborhoods and link cultural entrepreneurship diversity of New York with community resilience and launching a Masters of Fine Arts in Social Practice with Queens College and stimulate cross-disciplinary and cross-sector thinking about the urban landscape • Projectstheory,of development the to contributing informationand practice about the role of arts in equity and resilience. For example: • • • • • Projectsart making to people or communities and contributing with low-income and resilience.the goals of equity For example: • 2. 1. EXTENT OF DISTINCTIVE INNOVATION DISTINCTIVE OF EXTENT Finding 14 first and second between the 100 percent by increased innovations Distinctive innovations cohort,grantee distinctive to be deemed total of 50 grants of a with 14 in the second cohort. Using grant reports, website reviews and grantee interviews, analysis the Team’s suggests there were seven such grants in the early cohort and 14 in the later one. A list of these grantees is provided 2. ProfilesTable in of some of the most distinctive innovations are 2. included in Annex Innovation occurs along a spectrum,Innovation from incremental change to disruptive intervention. reportsUsing grantee interviews, and along analyzed CIF grants Team the Evaluation wherei) noting continuum, this projectCIF a previousa of extension an was practice similar resultsand likely to lead to ii) where as in the past, and a CIF project represented a significant divergence from previous had the prospect work by the grantee and of social relations. impacts on vulnerable populations and having lasting positive innovations fell into two categories. The most distinctive

✓ ✓

EVALUATION OF THE ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION PROGRAM NYC CULTURAL INNOVATION FUND 26 EVALUATION OF THE ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION PROGRAM NYC CULTURAL INNOVATION FUND 27 2010-2012 Casita Maria Time Creative Demos El Puente Foundry Theater Ghetto Film School Manufacturing Greenpoint District Project Laundromat Museum of Contemporary Diaspora African Parsons House Production People’s for Community Pratt Center Development Queens Museum Housing and Women’s Educational Development Corporation 2007-2009 Distinctive innovation grantees innovation Distinctive involving community residents in the exploration or creation of new art work or urban design processes (18 projects) presenting visual or performing arts (12 projects) in unconventional venues showcasing the work of minority artists and immigrant cultures (9 projects) enabling artistsgain financial or entrepreneurial to skills (8 projects) piloting new revenue-generating approaches or new business models to sustain artists and organizations (6 projects). Architectural League of New York of New York League Architectural Time Creative Atlas Fractured Institute for Urban Design The New School Parsons Polytechnic University New York Institute The Civilians TABLE 2: TABLE • • • • • CIF GRANTS INCREASED CAPACITY FOR INNOVATION FOR CAPACITY INCREASED GRANTS CIF COMMON INNOVATION THEMES INNOVATION COMMON Finding 16 the CIF grant increased reported respondents of grantee survey 73 percent Overall, the CIF reported and 66 percent as organizations, their capacities to innovate adaptive. helped them become more In the survey, 78 percent of groups in the later cohort reported that the CIF grant helped them become more and better able to respond adaptive and thrive in times of change, compared to 60 percent of groups funded between 2007 and 2009. Themes that occured repeatedly acrossincluded: the six years of grants Finding 15 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ support for a type of work not supported elsewhere the funding itself recognition by the Rockefeller Foundation. • • • FACTORS SUPPORTING AND HINDERING GRANTEES HINDERING AND SUPPORTING FACTORS GRANTEES FULFILLED GRANT TERMS GRANT FULFILLED GRANTEES Unique funding, size and length of grants, and recognition by the Rockefeller Foun- by the Rockefeller and recognition size and length of grants, Unique funding, inad- funding, while insufficient factors supporting grantee success, dation were lack of connections with other innovators equate personnel or technical expertise, cited as hindering factors for grantees. were and the recession Survey results suggest the following factors were very influential in CIF grantees’ success: Survey respondents indicated that support was the for work not funded by others most valuable factor of their CIF grant. In the survey, this was ranked as the most important factor of the grant by a majority of grantees (53 percent) and one of the top three factors by 80 percent of grantees. While recognition from the Rockefeller Foundation ranked third in the grantees’ as- sessment of the three most valuable factors about the CIF grant – after “the money” and “the opportunity to get support a type of work not supported for elsewhere” – the value of recognition from the Rockefeller Foundation was mentioned repeatedly in grantee interviews and survey comments. Funding from the Rockefeller Foundation boosted grantees’ confidence and their ability to raise other funds. The vast majority of CIF grantees have completed projects, fulfilled the terms of completed projects, majority of CIF grantees have The vast Only one grantee was unable to complete its their goals. their grants and advanced project. grant reportsFor grants made between 2007 and 2010, confirm that fewer than ten groups grantee needed to adapt their plans or extend their grant period, and only one was unable to complete its project. Grants made in 2011 and 2012 are still active but interim grant reports all are suggest that nearly grant terms. on track to complete their Finding 18 Finding 17 One survey respondent reflected “The grant jump-started comments of many: the a projectcomplex werewe and … while capacity our enhance and it beta-test to able serving In an interview, the highest level.” our constituency at grantee reported, one “As a service we tend to focus on problems to prevent crises. In Rockefeller provider, work we were is deficit-oriented by definition. The foundation speak, it able to do with CIF support changed the culture of our organization, pushing us to focus on a more are people, showcasing creative touching people who are assets-based approach. We assets, and introducing- would never have known. This has trans to others they them formed our capacity.”

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

EVALUATION OF THE ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION PROGRAM NYC CULTURAL INNOVATION FUND 28 EVALUATION OF THE ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION PROGRAM NYC CULTURAL INNOVATION FUND 29 engaging poor people in creating artwork in Harlem and the Bronx (e.g. Casita Maria, Groundswell Laundromat Community Mural, Project) in involving low-income teens and adults in urban design decision-making Manhattan and Brooklyn (e.g. Fourth Arts Block, Greenpoint Manufacturing, Parsons The New School) insufficient for the project funding or technical expertiseinadequate personnel on the part of the grantee tryinglack of connection to other innovators similar kinds of experiments stress on grantees due to the recession. • • • • • • BENEFITS FOR LOW-INCOME POPULATIONS LOW-INCOME FOR BENEFITS Findings – Influence Finding 19 between with an intentional focus on low-income populations increased Projects with 15 of a total of 50 the first and second grantee cohort (by nearly 400 percent) grants aimed at these audiences in the second cohort. Programs also have reached of other CIF grantees may low-income, poor or vulner- able communities, but doing so was not central to the project. Because the grantees did not report quantitative data about their audiences or participants, it is difficult to determine how successful they were in reaching or engaging these audiences. Data from grant reports interviews and grantee suggest that types of programs that intentionally engaged low-income populations included: Frominterviews also heard grants the of size the that the Team with grantees, two-year termsand their were in achieving results. helpful grantees In addition, reportedpreparation and planning that good for the projectstrengthentended to organizations’ aims. Three-quarters ability to achieve their of survey respondents (76 percent) that Rockefeller Foundation staff indicated achieve their helped them Edwin Torres, was repeatedly complimented, CIF project and CIF manager, goals, grantee interviewsboth in and surveyhis acces- his helpfulness and comments, for period. sibility during the grant The most important reported success in achieving CIF aims, as factors that inhibited by grantees in interviews and grantee reports, included: surveyIn numerouscomments, expressedgrantees regret that therebeen not had awardthe than other meetings reception, opportunitiesnor gather to grantees CIF for across the cohorts or meet with other recognized innovators inside and outside of the arts to learn more practice and effective about innovation strategies. Looking forward, survey respondents said they would be interested in receiving help to i) connect to others doing similar work and ii) measure the outcomes of their programs. A sig- nificant percentage of younger organizations (80 percent) would welcome help with communications strategy. ✓ ✓ 2010-2012 Caribbean Cultural Center Casita Maria CEC ArtsLink for Urban Pedagogy Center Chimpanzee Productions El Puente Foundry Theater Mural Community Groundswell for Arts and Culture Center Hostos Project Laundromat Museum of Contemporary Diasporan Arts The New School Parsons House Production People’s Queens Museum Housing and Educational Development Women’s Corporation 2007-2009 CIF projects focused on low-income populations CIF projects providing discount ticket services South Bronx, communities in the to low-income Harlem (Pregones Heights and East Theater) Washington hosting artists’ residencies communities in diverse in ethnically and economically Queens and the Bronx Queens Museum) (e.g. Casita Maria, developing a performing arts an affordable series in housing project in Brooklyn in the Bronxand a mixed-use development of Contemporary (e.g. Museum Development Corp.). Housing and Economic African Diasporan Arts, Women’s Bronx Council on the Arts Council Bronx Chez Bushwick Time Creative The Civilians TABLE 3: TABLE • • • INFORMING PUBLIC POLICY PUBLIC INFORMING Grant reports interviews and confirmed instances, such as Casita Maria in that in a few the Bronx establish programs Queens Museum, CIF funding helped and the serving that the sponsoring organizationslow-income people the CIF intend to sustain after grant. The number of CIF projects intentionally focused on reaching low-income people grew substantially between the two grant cohorts, from 3. to 15, as shown in Table four Finding 20 percent) (20 slightly policy increased public on focus intentional an with Projects between the first and second grantee cohorts of 50 grants aimed with 12 of a total public policy addressed 22 CIF projects at policy issues in the later cohort. Overall, the to gentrification, urban design, public spaces and strengthening issues related City. sector of New York creative

✓ ✓

EVALUATION OF THE ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION PROGRAM NYC CULTURAL INNOVATION FUND 30 EVALUATION OF THE ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION PROGRAM NYC CULTURAL INNOVATION FUND 31 2010-2012 Alliance of Resident Theaters/NY Time Creative Demos Fourth Arts Block Manufacturing Greenpoint and Design Center National Association of Latino Independent Producers Foundation for the New York Arts University New York Hemispheric Institute The New School Parsons Pratt Society Wildlife Conservation the Streets Above Word is supporting of a city-wide network the development ’s partnership with Public Policy Lab and the New York ’s partnership Public Policy Lab and the New York with has been invited by its City Councilman to be the central by its City Councilman to be the central has been invited 2007-2009 CIF projects focused on public policy CIF projects PARSONS THE NEW SCHOOL NEW THE PARSONS GREENPOINT MANUFACTURING GREENPOINT MUSEUM QUEENS THE City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) is empowering City residents to participate as co-designers and co-producers of housing services and influencing the practices of the HPD. planning coordinator of the rehabilitation processunderway at Queens’ Corona Plaza, as a result of its Studio Corona project artists embedding neigh- in the local borhood of Naturally Occurring officials including working with elected Cultural Districts, to inform policies regarding arts-based entrepreneurial ventures community and of neighborhoods,development in a variety including some in low-income areas. Architectural League Architectural Museum Bronx Economic Development Overall Bronx Corporation on the Arts & Humanities of Council Staten Island Atlas Fractured HERE Arts Center Institute for Urban Design Polytechnic University New York Institute The New School Parsons Performa • • • The number of projectson public policy increased focused the two cohorts, between from 4. 10 to 12 grants, as shown in Table Affectingyears. two than longer much cases, most in and, time takes policies public to CIF projects can be attributed specific policy changes While no from available data reports,grant in interviews reviewand grantees CIF of number a websites, grantee of City agencies or elected officialsare efforts and these New York engaging have the public policies in the future.potential to influence For example: TABLE 4: 4: TABLE The Public Theater is embracing concepts piloted under the The Public Theater is embracing concepts The lessons that Fractured Atlas, a national artist service or- The Individual Development Account Initiative, piloted by ArtHomeThe Individual with a CIF grant, supports artists developing businesses to sustain their art in making and is being replicated Minneapolis and Cleveland. in Foundry theater artists Theater’s CIF grant in which worked with social justice organizations.has hired Public Theater The former Foundry artistic personnel to program. start Works its new Public ARTHOME. ARTHOME. FOUNDRY THEATER. FOUNDRY ATLAS. FRACTURED ganization, learned through its CIF-funded effort in low- to map cultural assets income Brooklyn communities became the basis for its Archipelago software program. The program, further from developed with funding the Hewlett Founda- AreaBay the in assets cultural map to used been has tion, used being is now and by Sustain Arts, a national initiative at ’s Hauser Center. • • • CIF INNOVATIONS INFLUENCING OTHERS INFLUENCING INNOVATIONS CIF CIF GRANTS LEVERAGED OTHER FUNDING OTHER LEVERAGED GRANTS CIF Finding 22 influencing the behavior of other cultural CIF grantees are piloted by Innovations organizations. Interviewsreportsand grantee CIF projects indicate that the are being replicated or adapted by other cultural groups or communities. Finding 21 Finding that their CIF grant reported percent) (82 respondents majority of survey A large a substantial amounthelped them attract funds. of other by CIF grantees to date. leverage that has been achieved This is the most quantifiable More (54 percent) than half of survey respondents reported they attracted over that funding as a result$100,000 in additional grant, and 15 percent of their CIF attracted important suggests that the CIF grants have been over $500,000. This funding seed capital to be fully realized. of which needed substantial additional for new ideas, many interviewsComments in grantee and the survey reinforced- the value of the Rockefell in the eyes of other funders. Thereer Foundation’s validation is no data on whether CIF grants enabled organizations to become less reliant on grant funding overall.

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

EVALUATION OF THE ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION PROGRAM NYC CULTURAL INNOVATION FUND 32 EVALUATION OF THE ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION PROGRAM NYC CULTURAL INNOVATION FUND 33 contributed information for the due diligence process on grantees and final proposals from 50–75 organizations, including consultations with CIF program advisors prepared recommendations for 15–20 grants for the president’s consideration contributed to information for grant agreements for 16–18 awarded grants collaborated with the Rockefeller Foundation’s Communications Office on the public announcement of awards and annual reception for grantees and maintained contact with 30–50 active grantees, including making site visits answering inquiries responded to ongoing internal and external inquiries about CIF represented the Rockefeller Foundation and CIF at national, regional and local meetings of grantmakers. communicated with cultural organizations,communicated with cultural other funders, civic leaders and others to identify interesting prospects for the program met with, site-visited or talked with between 150 and 200 organizations to discuss potential applications reviewed and winnowed these to 50–75 finalists 400 to 500 “idea submissions” counseled the 50–75 finalists in preparing full applications to the Rockefeller Foundation empowering people by providing them with creative means to express their views and opinions (e.g. Civilians, Foundry Laundromat Project, People’s Pro- Theater, duction House, Queens Museum) (e.g. Fourthengaging people in urban design decision-making Arts Block, Groundswell Mural, Parsons The New School) of public policies that affecteducating people about the development their lives Greenpoint Manufacturing). (e.g. Center for Urban Pedagogy,

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • PROGRAM MANAGEMENT HAS BEEN EFFICIENT BEEN HAS MANAGEMENT PROGRAM CIF GRANTS HELP GROUPS LEVERAGE CREATIVE PRACTICE FOR FOR PRACTICE CREATIVE LEVERAGE GROUPS HELP GRANTS CIF CHANGE SOCIAL Findings – Impact Findings Finding 24 the with similar payout, Benchmarked against other arts foundations’ programs the but field portfoliowith CIF consistent norms, the is in grants of number and size is far higher. number of submissions to process average, each year the CIF staffIn fewer than 15–20 hours per week, on has: Findings – Efficiency g 23 Findin and creative said the CIF grant leveraged respondents to half of all survey Close change goals. social artistic to achieve practice social change increased who used their grants to lever of CIF grantees The number between the two cohorts. Two-thirds percent) (67 of the later cohort reported that them leverage creativetheir grants helped practice for social change, compared with 40 percentearly cohort. of the Strategies used by grantees included: ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ TRANSACTION COSTS WORTH OVERALL GAINS OVERALL WORTH COSTS TRANSACTION CIF LEADERSHIP HAS ACHIEVED VISIBILITY BUT NOT CLARITY NOT BUT VISIBILITY ACHIEVED HAS LEADERSHIP CIF The transaction costs for CIF appear to be well worth the overall gains. gains. for CIF appear to be well worth the overall The transaction costs Based on a review of program operations, grantee reports and interviews with grantees and national leaders demonstrate that CIF has garnered widespread visibility for the sphere,issue of cultural innovation and the Rockefeller Foundation’s leadership in this A diverse array of innovative projects has been City and nationally. both in New York supported, servingYork hundreds of thousands of people in all five boroughs of New In addition, projects The vast majority of CIF have been completed successfully. City. a number of promising new concepts have been tested, many of which have relevance both for the cultural and community organizations and for the Rockefeller involved Foundation’s future work. Finding 26 Finding 25 visibility for CIF in the cultural sector and Foundation has achieved The Rockefeller has been less view of innovation of CIF’s but the positioning among arts funders, due to unclear communication. effective As reported in the grantee survey, 60 percent of survey respondents are clear not informants of number A innovation. of definition Foundation’s the Rockefeller about City area they had seen the Rockefeller Foundation’s ad- mentioned in the New York vertisements Times but they also noted that these CIF awards about New York in the increasenot did ads program.the of understanding their Interviews national with leaders across the country revealed awareness of CIF but little knowledge of its goals results.or fromComments respondents 15 survey in the aremany that suggest not consideredclear about why the Rockefeller Foundation the funded projects to be in- resultsThese novative. par- not been have CIF communications about that suggest ticularly effective. The Evaluation Team benchmarked the CIF portfolio benchmarked the Team The Evaluation the grant programs against of artsfive other the James Irvine funders, including Walter and Elise Haas Foundation, Artsfor the Pew Center Community Foundation, Fund, Marin Robert and Heritage & Rauschenberg While every Foundation. programgrant particularhas features, CIF’s be in keeping with other programsworkload appears to with payout in the $2–3 million processingrange. While CIF’s submissions and reviewing of the 400 to 500 initial 50–75 full proposals was higher than the norm, managing a portfolio of 16–18 annual other artsgrants is on par with and culture grants programs. Survey respondents commented on their perceptions of the program’s administration: “CIF staff is very helpful, and the program well-run,” is exceedingly according one respondent. for CIF and found it a difficult commented, “I applied many years Another process.and time-consuming I greatly appreciatethe streamlining of the proposal form of Eddie Torres and the willingness to do site visits and give feedback,” while a third respondent added, “The Rockefeller Foundation is really at the top as a grantor.”

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

EVALUATION OF THE ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION PROGRAM NYC CULTURAL INNOVATION FUND 34 EVALUATION OF THE ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION PROGRAM NYC CULTURAL INNOVATION FUND 35 6 ecommendations The Rockefeller Foundation’s leadership has helped draw national attention to the The Rockefeller Foundation’s leadership importance of cultural innovation. Support innovation that focuses on equity and resilience for cultural is a new and potentially disruptive strategy for arts City and nation- philanthropy in New York ally. A growing number of artists, cultural groups and community organizations are interested resilience in using artistic and social change. practice to achieve equity, CIF gave some of these organizations resources and CIF to develop their practice, that the artsgrants demonstrated some of the ways can advance those objectives. substantial additional funding for The success of many CIF grantees in attracting their projects suggests there be growing may interest in this kind of work in the representcould which opportunityof window a philanthropicsector, Rock- the for efeller Foundation to partner with other investors in the future. While the Rockefeller Foundation has been forward looking, its thinking about innovation overall and about cultural innovation in particular has not been clearly - communicated. This has diminished the impact of CIF on the Rockefeller Founda tion’s goals at both the individual project and portfolio levels. greater achieve impacts in the future, CIF needs clearerTo connection to the clearer definitions of terms such Rockefeller Foundation’s overarching strategy, as innovation, resilience as they relate and equity to arts and culture, an explicit theory of change that supports the desired impacts, and a grantmaking approach that will advance practice, capture lessons and share learning with others. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 6.1 Lessons drewFrom these primary its assessment of the CIF program, the Evaluation Team lessons. sons, r sons, Les and options for the future 5. subcontracting with an intermediary or service provider to manage the application process, and using a panel process (a rotating panel of 8–12 field experts) to select programthe to advisors expanding grantees, it about knowledge field and improve communication with applicants enable CIF staff to focus more time on supporting grantees in achieving outcomes and capture learning by: • • develop a system to capture information and impacts at the in- on outcomes dividual grantee and at portfolio levels (focus less on what grantees did and more on what they changed) help grantees develop capacity to reflect on their innovation practices consider follow-up grants to the most promising projects, enhancing chances of long-term impact analyze grantee reports on an ongoing basis, perhaps by appointing evalua- tors or an intermediary to study the grantees’ practices, evaluate outcomes and further refine the theory of change juncturescritical at grantees convene learnto from build and other each collaboration and synergies, and to discuss and learn from their strategies, successes and failures communicate results regularly of CIF investment with the cultural sector, civic leadership and other funders.

Clarify the Rockefeller Foundation’s programFoundation’s Rockefeller the Clarify - innova of kinds What objectives: tion does CIF support? What kinds of outcomes it is hoping to achieve, for what populations? Develop an explicit theory of change for CIF: How do CIF’s funding and other inputs lead to desired outcomes and impacts? Structure the grantmaking to achieve the Rockefeller Foundation goals: • • • • • • • • Develop explicit connections between CIF and the Rockefeller Foundation’s Foundation’s Rockefeller CIF and the connections between explicit Develop overall goals and strategies. “cultural and equity”, “cultural innovation”, “cultural of definitions clear Develop resilience”. in the cultural of “outcomes” and “impacts” for innovation Clarify definitions sector. “innovation spectrum”, the Rockefeller Foundation’s Clarify and make explicit and define terms such as “incremental” and “disruptive” in the context of arts and culture.

1. 2. 3. 1. 2. 3. 4. 6.3 Options for the future assessment, the CIF is an importantIn the Evaluation Team’s part of the Rockefeller programs.grantmaking of suite Foundation’s futurethe in impacts Its height- be can ened with greater and a systematic effort clarity of focus to capture and disseminate lessons from For the purpose of stimulating discussion, the its grantees’ practice. For the CIF Program (current iteration) (current For the CIF Program 6.2 Recommendations Foundation For the Rockefeller

EVALUATION OF THE ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION PROGRAM NYC CULTURAL INNOVATION FUND 36 EVALUATION OF THE ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION PROGRAM NYC CULTURAL INNOVATION FUND 37 clarifying the focus areas the arts in which and culture are a readily applicable “solution” – likely Transform Cities and Revalue Ecosystems articulating the range of arts and culture strategies that have been used success- fully to advance work in these areas, from the CIF grantees’ experiences as well as from funding programs strategies identified by other and research defining the theory of change developing more rigorous assessment of the value of different kinds of innovation to the Rockefeller Foundation York City and – to the field of the arts, to New revising application guidelines and reporting forms to reflect revised purpose, and desired outcomes and impacts intermediaryan with subcontracting processapplication the manage to and/or using a rotating panel of field leaders to adjudicate application review and lessons, and encouraging convening grantees to discuss their innovations groups doing similar projects lessons on successes and failures to exchange portfolioand grant individual both at success measuring tracking and levels, progress towards outcomes of practice throughconsolidating and disseminating lessons publications, online strategies and other means. 1. 2. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Status Quo-Plus – CIF as an opportunity Status Quo-Plus – of fund for a range 1: OPTION Option 2: CIF as a “distinct innovation solution” in the Innovation Pathway solution” in the Innovation innovation Option 2: CIF as a “distinct making arts The Rockefeller Foundation could move CIF to the Innovation Pathway, and culturesolution” to advance equity and resilience a “distinct innovative and achieve the Rockefeller Foundation goals in one or more of the focus areas. This approach would build on the relevant practices, discoveries and innovations of CIF grantees and other innovators in these fields. CIF might be linked to the Rockefeller Foundation’s recently Cities Initiative or connected to another appropriate announced 100 Resilient initiative. Key steps in moving this concept forward might include: CIF could continue to serveCIF could continue as an open-ended, “free-wheeling” program relatively detached from Intervention Rockefeller Foundation’s Innovation, the and Influence could continue to supportPathways. CIF also a range of innovative approaches to strengthening the arts sector’s contri- City and advancing the and culture in New York issues, including better servingbution to civic leadership poor and vulnerable popula- tions. This approach to remain would allow the Rockefeller Foundation nimble and supportingflexible, innovations that improve the resilience of arts organizations and the arts that contribute to the Rockefeller Foundation’s field, as well as innovations broader aims. It would allow the Rockefeller Foundation to respond to interesting op- portunities pursue innovative cultural partnerships that arise, and and collaborations, be a “good neighbor” in its home city. Key steps in moving this concept forward might include: Team offersTeam three for reconfiguring possible options that could lead the CIF in ways to greater impact. innovative projects innovative CIF as leading laboratory for art social change and clarifying the hypothesis or logic model for applying arts model for applying the hypothesis or logic clarifying and culture as a strategic solution portfolioframing a the hypothesis investments to test of grant and evaluators to determineworking with grantees appropriate and measurable outcomes and results effortsinvesting in field-building as such research, support convening and for intermediaries the gains made by individual grantees to sustain and quantitative informationcapturing qualitative and lessons from projects the knowledge to relevantand disseminating that and funders. fields developing a theory of change identifying a cluster of funding partners committed to arts and and social change Foundation to createwilling to collaborate with the Rockefeller of “local a network help catalyze and invest in multiple local laboratories” in 5–10 places which would organizations are that advancing promising practices with the funding partners, commissioning research on the theory and practices necessary support to extend this work and its most innovative practitioners, including both organizations and creative individuals with the funding partners, identifying the key questions that the laboratories are intended to explore, e.g. What are the ways that the arts are contributing to equity resilience?and areWhat possible? these innovations make conditions that the What helps sustain innovation in this field and spread its principles to other sites? with the funding partners, and informed by the research findings, inviting proposals to test different that arts/culture ways can advance the goals of equity, resilience some variables constant so comparisons and social change, holding between projects of effective can be made and lessons practice extracted working with grantees as partners to achieve measurable outcomes and impacts, and investing over 3–5 year periods investing in field-building efforts such as research, convening and support for in- termediariesindividual grantees, and strengtheningmade by gains the to sustain the network of national practitioners advancing this new field capturing qualitative and quantitative information and lessons from the program and disseminating that knowledge to relevant fields and funders.

3. 5. 6. 7. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. OPTION 3: OPTION 4. CIF might be reconfigured as a laboratorydedicated to the emerging field of arts and and support study breakthrough option, CIF would identify, social change. In this innovations that use the arts and culture to address equity and issues of community resilience, Founda- and empower poor and vulnerable communities. The Rockefeller tion would take a philanthropic leadership position in this emerging field, organizing a to validate and elevate this work as a critical multi-site, multi-funder national initiative The laboratorycomponent of lasting community change. would support orga leading - capturepractices, innovative nizations and about effectiveknowledge and disseminate with other sectors, evaluate impacts, innovations, build networks, bridge connections and sponsor research to bolster the theoretical of this emerging underpinnings field. Key steps in moving this concept forward might include:

EVALUATION OF THE ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION PROGRAM NYC CULTURAL INNOVATION FUND 38 EVALUATION OF THE ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION PROGRAM NYC CULTURAL INNOVATION FUND 39 Increase for poor and vulnerable people and com- access to cultural institutions munities. Background to the Cultural Innovation Fund 1. ANNEX 1: TERMS OF REFERENCE OF TERMS 1: ANNEX The Rockefeller Foundation is undertaking an evaluation of its NYC Cultural Inno- vation Fund (CIF) in order to learn what has worked most effectively promoting in innovations in the cultural arena, to date, and to account for funds invested in the CIF inform future social change, work in arts Rockefeller Foundation innovation, equity, innovation and resilience. 2. Created in 2007, the CIF operates on an annual cycle of grant making. From 2007-2012 a total of 96 grants were awarded to 87 grantees for a total expenditure of over $15 million. ThesupportsFoundation Rockefeller the which by means the of one is CIF as partinnovation. The CIF was established of an opportunity fund to support the The CIF is with NYC’s civic community. expansion of cultural vitality and its overlap run as a competition, the selection for which is made by an external group of jurors. the Fund to leverage innovation to addressThe Rockefeller Foundation has used specific problems These problems of equity and social and cultural inclusion. include: 1) Only 10 percent of cultural philanthropy explicitly benefits low-income populations; 2) Less than 4 percent of cultural philanthropy focuses on advancing social change; and 3) Rates of participation in formal cultural presentations have seen steep declines in the past 20 years, especially amongst the young. of The rationale and focus of the Fund has evolved over time to integrate the principles more equitable growth and resilience for poor and vulnerable populations. In evolving the CIF the focus and purpose of the Fund, the Rockefeller Foundation believed that could take advantage of concomitant opportunities such as the following: 1) As rates of attendance at formal cultural events decrease, informal participation increases; 2) Creative expression can function as a communication tool that moves people emo- and 3) Cultural producers influencing stakeholders; have outputs that can be tionally, monetized – in turn this income can be used as risk capital. In response to these problems and opportunities, the aims of the CIF have evolved as follows: Summary Outline for of Reference Terms Fund (CIF) Cultural Innovation Foundation of the Rockefeller The Evaluation September 2012 1. Introduction Annexes 6.

Supportpresentation in cultural innovations places (public including uncommon housing, commercial Laundromats, etc.) where are the poor or vulnerable more easily reached. Support cultural forms innovations in that reflectdiversity of NYC’s popula- the tion. Ensure that culture speaks to the concerns or vulnerable people through of poor co-presentersand co-authors as poor the of engagement the of creativeworks of expression. Leverage creative expression in policy and practice. to influence changes Support organizational including those that decrease innovations, artists’ arts and organizations’ reliance support. upon grant Categorize and analyze the grant making portfolioCategorize and analyze the grant making of the CIF taking into account Fund over time. the evolving focus and purpose of the Assess the relevance, effectiveness and influence of the grant making in relation the goals of the Rockefeller Foundation – to the evolving goals of the Fund and more equitable growth and resilience. Broadly inform future in arts the Rockefeller Foundation work innovation, equity, social change, innovation and resilience. the Rockefeller Foundation and the field Contribute to knowledge generation for in cultural artsby capturing the lessons and case studies innovation, with specific social resilience change. and social interest in issues of equity, Findings and conclusions will inform the strategy and future cultural innovation practice of the Rockefeller Foundation. Evaluation Criteria and Key Questions Objectives of the Evaluation Objectives of the Evaluation

2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Under its refined strategy, the CIF partners the CIF Under its refinedorganizations cultural strategy, grantees to with creatively articulate people through the views of poor and vulnerable exhibitions, etc. that have been informed by both poor and vulnerable people and works of theater, the targets It also brokers of influence. partnerships with those whose practices or to influence to bring greaterpolicies the Rockefeller Foundation aims public attention change. and leverage influence to achieve social The CIF evaluation has taken into account key aspects of the evaluation of the Ac- The CIF evaluation has taken into account key aspects of the evaluation of use of celerating Innovation for Development Initiative, completed in 2012, including some key questions from and a focus on the metrics and approaches that evaluation, appropriate practices and processes, for evaluating innovation rather than those for evaluating innovative products, processes or services. Questions and analysis will focus on three levels – the overall CIF Fund, intermedi - supportate the out set will TOR detailed The grantees. CIF individual and grantees, full range of questions to be covered in each of these levels. In summary, the key questions are: 4. 3. The objectives of the CIF Evaluation are to:

EVALUATION OF THE ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION PROGRAM NYC CULTURAL INNOVATION FUND 40 EVALUATION OF THE ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION PROGRAM NYC CULTURAL INNOVATION FUND 41 Has the CIF improved the lives of poor and vulnerable people in NYC either directly or indirectly? In what ways? For whom? Where? How? What are the lessons from CIF and how should they inform the strategy and futurework as well as Foundation Rockefeller the of practice innovation cultural social resilience and social change? on equity, How efficientand effective CIF? Could is the management and leadership of the time and resources have been used more efficiently? If so, in what way? Are the cycle of CIF grants worthtransaction costs of managing the annual the overall gains made? Have CIF grants influenced public policy and practice at individual, community NYC? in populations vulnerable and poor benefit to levels institutional and/or Where and in what way? What role influence? has innovation played in achieving What leverage has been achieved for grantees by CIF grants? How relevant of individual grantees? to the needs and aims is the CIF CIF distinctive fromHow is the arts-funding other cultural programs? Is the role of innovation in the theory of change of the CIF appropriate and relevant? CIF (especially the 2010 – 2012 cohorts)How aligned is the of the with the goals what extent - MoreRockefeller Foundation Equitable Growth and Resilience? To do these goals feature in, or at least relatethe work of grantees? to, At the portfolio level, how effective in achieving the aims of the has the CIF been Fund and in supporting Rockefeller Foundation? the goals of the Does the CIF portfolio have a value greater than the sum of the parts, or are the gains confined to individual grants? Is a competition adjudicated by external jurors the best structure for this program? have grantees achieved the objectives of At the individual level – to what extent their respective on In- CIF grants? Specific questions at individual level will focus See Annex 1 for examples. Equity. Resilience, novation, Visibility, What are the most distinctive innovations that have resulted from the grants? areWhat themes across the common innovation portfolio? the Have grantees Rockefeller Foundation’s definition of inno- succeeded in innovating in light of the vation? In what way? Did support for reducing grantees’ reliance support on grant yield increased capacity for innovation? What factors have supported and hindered grantees in achieving the aims of the CIF? • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Relevance Impact Lessons Efficiency Influence Effectiveness Effectiveness

A portfolio analysis of the CIF A set of case studies of the CIF A short video depicting the case studies and lessons learned from the CIF An evaluation report A synthesis of lessons from of cultural arts the field good innovation as a public knowledge product. This is to be undertaken by the Foundation Center in con- junction with their work on the Sustainable Arts in America project of Harvard University’s Hauser Center. What potential does CIF have to add value to the new Issue Areas? to add value to the does CIF have What potential the CIF portfolioHow should the Rock- with the work of to better align evolve efeller Foundation? Portfolio analysis - Review of the portfolio grants to categorize and of the CIF in relationanalyze the grant making to identify grants with to a set of criteria to assess them (or a sample) in relationsimilar objectives and to their contribution Rockefeller Founda- of the Fund and the goals of the to the evolving objectives more-- tion growthequitable resilienceand to contribute to potential the and -- the new Focus Areas. Criteria for the Portfolio Review will be finalized with the Grantee and Rockefeller Foundation staff. A basic survey if not all, CIF grantees and partners to determine of the majority, Foundation’s supportalignment and value added of the Rockefeller for their work. Follow-up interviews of CIF grantees and partners with a limited number selected because of specific learning opportunities related to their work in arts innovation, equity and resilience, and possibly new Focus Areas work. Criteria to be finalized resultswith Evaluation grantee based on the of the portfolio interviews review, and survey. CIF grantees to be selected after the first Case studies with a small number of round of surveys and interviews. work of This includes video coverage of the grantees. Interviews leadership and managers, and peers with the Rockefeller Foundation from foundations with similar cultural innovation funds. fromlessons of Synthesis ArtsCultural of studies and evaluations and Funds Programs. This component of the Evaluation will be undertaken by the Founda- partas Center tion relatedwork their of ArtsSustainable the to projectAmerica in of Harvard for Non-profit University’s Hauser Center Organizations.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. • • 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Deliverables from this grant will include: from Deliverables 5. Methodology components: this evaluation will include the following The methodology of A small informal reference group will be used for this evaluation comprised of peers in evaluation from foundations who work on evaluation in the cultural arts innovation field.

EVALUATION OF THE ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION PROGRAM NYC CULTURAL INNOVATION FUND 42 EVALUATION OF THE ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION PROGRAM NYC CULTURAL INNOVATION FUND 43 KEY MILESTONES AND DELIVERABLES AND MILESTONES KEY Evaluation TORs and Scope of Work agreed with the Rockefeller with the Rockefeller agreed and Scope of Work TORs Evaluation Foundation leadership selection of Grantee RFP, and grant agreement Grant approval of data collection tools workplan, development Evaluation portfolio Foundation managers, Interviews with the Rockefeller of CIF grantees survey analysis, focus groups Interviews with grantees, video interviews Case studies, review Synthesis of findings Analysis Office, CIF Fund manager Evaluation to report delivered Draft senior Foundation VPs, to the Rockefeller Presentation managers revisions Comments, Final report Learning – findings review Sharing of lessons and synthesis on Hauser project Forum with grantees and Foundation Center, Sustainable Arts in America. DATE Timeframe - Milestones, Deliverables Did your supportedDid your projectin ways that were achieve your mission divergent from past approaches? Did your supported project combine elements & approaches from different disci- plines & sectors? Did these combinations leave healthier social relationships in their wake? $200,000 for data collection, analysis and reporting$200,000 for data collection, $100,000 to producethe of video a companion case studies; 2) 1) selected CIF 3) and a synthesis of lessons fromCIF case studies; and Cultural ArtsInnova- tion programs. product This will be undertaken Center in con- by the Foundation work on the Sustainable Artsjunction with their in America project of Harvard’s Hauser Center. October-early November 2012 November October-early 2012 November-December 2012 November 2012 November-December January 2013 February 2013 Late February 2013 2013 February-March August-September 2012 August-September • • • 7. • • INNOVATION An Evaluation Matrix will be developed with the grantee to include questions for all for questions include to grantee the with developed be will Matrix Evaluation An three Fund, intermediaries, levels of the evaluation – overall individual grantees. The questions below are the individual level questions. illustrative of 8. Indicative questions for individual grantee level Budget 6. Budget will be $300,000 broken for the evaluation The budget down as follows:

What evidence of increased equity have you seen? What larger social goals have you contributed to? Did you create new ways for NYC residents to access creative expression? this access created for the poor and vulnerable? Was Did you create new means by which the poor and vulnerable were able to creative- ly express themselves, their issues & concerns? you create Did new audiences for their self-expression? Have you seen evidence of increasedHave you visibility? in terms been framed Has this coverage of innovation? of the coverage? What was the tone For what larger increased social issues have you visibility? increased? ability to adapt, change and experiment Have your constituents’ Have your artists’ to adapt, change and experiment increased? ability Has your organization’s increased? ability to adapt, change and experiment Have your organization, artists developed new or sustain- or community members able revenuestreams? What larger have you contributed to? social goals

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • EQUITY RESILIENCE VISIBILITY

EVALUATION OF THE ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION PROGRAM NYC CULTURAL INNOVATION FUND 44 EVALUATION OF THE ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION PROGRAM NYC CULTURAL INNOVATION FUND 45 a community-engaged theatre company, explored the Atlantic Yards explored Yards the Atlantic theatrea community-engaged company, is a venerable settlement house, founded in East Harlem in the 1930s, house, founded in East Harlem is a venerable settlement ANNEX 2: EXEMPLARY PROJECT PROFILES PROJECT EXEMPLARY 2: ANNEX THE CIVILIANS, THE CASITA MARIA CASITA Casita Maria followed the Latino immigrant community to the South Bronx in 1960. to the South Bronx the Latino immigrant community Casita Maria followed in 1960. weatheredMaria Casita areathe of collapse economic the its when 1970s, the in neighborhood arson epidemic, unemployment, street was devastated by an gangs, and drugs. Recognizing that the South Bronx- has been a hub for cultural innova culture that has influenced American popular tion and hybridization for decades— Jewish culture from the 1930s, the emergence Latin music as Caribbean immi- of hop in the 1980s—Casita in the 50s and 60s, and rap and hip grants moved in, doowop decided to move the arts to the center of its identity as a social service organization artsthe use and Bronx.South the about think way people the change to from“People outside the area, but also local residents have internalized of helplessness its identity and hopelessness. What this area needs is respect,” said, executive director Sarah Calderon.area’sthe chosen has Casita cultivating for strategy a as legacy cultural rich respect.that has brought Casita in the Streets Dancing a resident as its building into Streets Dancing in the is a producer of adventurous free performanc public company. - es in unexpected places—fromrooftops, grain silos, beaches, parks, and fire-escapes to the middle of the street. Casita’s building, which is shared school, also with a public includes a gallery The two organizations have mapped the South Bronx and a theater. Culture Trail, which maps historic cultural sites and venues from the first Latin record store to the Fort began to breathe Apache police station. Last fall they the life into Trail tours and live performances with on the fire and sidewalks of escapes, stoops, the StreetsHunts Point and Longwood. Dancing in the Trail will continue to animate dancers, conga players, stickball games, and for at least another year with mambo a salsa concerta walking and dancing celebration of the neighborhood in featuring professional and neighborhood residents. Examples of successful efforts of successful Examples art to make low-income people with - or communi to the goalsties and contribute of equity and resilience. development in a participatory process residents with community that led to produc- hearings, community with material collected at public tion of a new musical. Working meetings and demonstrations, as well as interviews with key participants and urban planning professionals, The Civilians built a play about the struggle over the largest projectdevelopment urban TimesNY The Brooklynin history. Footprint the In said cultureswas “an edifying if not always cheering lesson in the way that cities and evolve, and the way the balance of power between the mighty brokers of New York - and its unmonied citizens does not. [It] also illuminates how the changing demograph ics of the neighborhood have informed (and inflamed) the relationships between the black and white populations and how the redevelopment plan sowed division among area’sthe residents.black but class… civics a like show sound the make may This this seminar is delivered…by a chorus distinctive voices: impassioned, cynical, of the core,to Yorkers New personality. with bristling always aggrieved, but outraged, in other words.” Civilians has now commissioned the playwright and composer The who created In the Footprint, Lynn Nottage and Kirsten Childs, to write another show material but a less specific exploration of the dynamics grounded in the Atlantic Yards of development, politics, race, class, displacement and gentrification on real lives. has hosted a dialogue series with community activists for nearly for activists community with series dialogue a hosted has When thinking about “cultural districts,” people generally imagine large is Brooklyn’s most comprehensivearts Latino Its center. and cultural

FOUNDRY THEATRE FOUNDRY EL PUENTE PUENTE EL GREENPOINT MANUFACTURING AND DESIGN CENTER (NATURALLY OCCURRING CULTURAL CULTURAL OCCURRING (NATURALLY CENTER DESIGN AND MANUFACTURING GREENPOINT DISTRICTS) 20 years, exploring issues and ideas of contemporary social and political resonance. contemporary20 years, exploring issues and ideas of social and political resonance. In 2007 the company hired a community organizer to deepen those relationships, and on visions of the ‘global city’ with five in 2010, it decided to do a series of dialogues community and social justice organizations. The collaborations quickly developed The result was five more ambitious goals: to make new works of theater together. new theater works loosely structured around that theme. Members of the community organizationsFoundrywith worked staff artistsand shows of the new aspects all on The most ambitious was an adaptation of Pins including acting, singing and dancing. and Needles, a Depression-era musical, originally produced by the International Union, which ran on Broadway for three years. Produced Ladies Garment Workers Equality (FUREE), whose members with Families United for Racial and Economic collaborated in the adaptation (18 performed which was a regular part in the show, of Foundry’s FUREE’s season), the show was updated to illuminate the parallel between and the union’s organizing efforts (Surviving years earlier. seventy-five members of the original cast were a performance.) able to attend As artistic director Melanie but it was enormously rewarding for Joseph explained, the collaboration was not easy, both the theater and the community organizations. work with people who are “Making not artists for audiences that are not regulartheater-goers has changed me, made me ask how we broaden the circle involved in the rigorous inquiry making that goes into will continue to do that.” Joseph is convinced that will make better artart. and We contribute to richer visions of a more just society. planned developments in which impressive arts such as venues are clustered together, occurring Naturally cultural districts are smaller and emerge moreLincoln Center. or mission is to use the artsthe use to is mission artists engaging change, social for tool a as activists and in the creation of arts and facilitation projects on artistic focused mastery and It providescommunity development. and pre-professional leadership training training art, studio/mural filmmaking, dj/scratch, voice, drama, dance, in and design graphic for Peace and Justice, and it manages the El Puente Academy Hip-Hop in four centers, Greena public school. The Light District, its CIF project, is an initiative that is using the artsresidents to connect longtime Latino of Williamsburg with new and more affluent residents through arts projects and programs. Frances Lasorda, a founder of “The gentrification of El Puente explained, Williamsburg has had huge repercussions people have been displaced. The process Thousands of for the Latino community. of gentrification breaks people. Those that down that spirit. It disempowers remain struggle with that, and with all the standard measures access, of wellness—health, can address all of that throughartsthe We education. the Greenin District.” Light green, and celebrate Williamsburg’sThe project is ten-year initiative to sustain, grow, Southside community with task forces organized around affordable housing, arts & culture,greeningeducation, environmental& spaces wellness. & health and justice, “The Green Light District seeks to flip the disempowerment of gentrification and put the power of transformation in the hands of its residents and stakeholders,” and artists are central to the strategy.

EVALUATION OF THE ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION PROGRAM NYC CULTURAL INNOVATION FUND 46 EVALUATION OF THE ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION PROGRAM NYC CULTURAL INNOVATION FUND 47 is a community-based museum is Convinced “that art can have a social impact outside the QUEENS MUSEUM OF ART. OF MUSEUM QUEENS MUSEUM OF CONTEMPORARY AFRICAN DIASPORAN ARTS DIASPORAN AFRICAN CONTEMPORARY OF MUSEUM located in Brooklyn’s Fort first CIF project established a Greene area. MoCADA’s collaboration of 32 African Diaspora arts organizations called Soul of Brooklyn that has built partnerships with the local businesses in central Brooklyn neighborhoods around arts programming to promote their businesses and the enormousdiversity of art rooted of Brooklyn in the African diaspora. The keystone of Soul is its annual Block second project, 20,000 people. MoCADA’s a summer event that draws some Party, bring artswill #SoulofBK, programming de- housing public four in spaces public to Brooklyn’sin velopments Fort Greene surroundingand neighborhoods monthly a on basis. The series began in February with a screening of the award-winning feature, Nowhere,of Middle explores that film a effects the incarceration of who women on lose their loved ones to prison. The screening, cosponsored by the Ingersoll Homes residents Association, was attended by a balance of and non-residents and Tenant followed by a discussion with CNUS, a ‘think tank of formerly incarcerated profes- sionals…working for justice.’ Upcoming programs include a jazz performance, a screening of the Harry Song with Belafonte present, a Belafonte’s biopic Sing Your dance performance ‘the street with dance king of Brooklyn’, and participatory arts projects gardens in the public housing tenant led by MoCADA teaching artists. The commitments to the cultural programming MoCADA’s is designed to weave together interests residents, and needs of public housing breaking down the boundaries that fromthem isolate neighborhoodsthe gentrified surround that the museum’s them, exploration of the rich complexity of African-rooted expression, and dialogue about the difficult issues facing the large and complex black community of Brooklyn. less spontaneously “in the context of their neighborhoods, their of context the “in spontaneously less strengthand into tapping - creativeof clusters local ening com- racial or ethnic the with associated often assets” the neighborhood,position of or as a resultand affordable of attractive rents for artists or arts organizations. The organization Naturally Occurring Cultural Districts among organizations(NOCD) is a collaboration and individuals representing organic Greenpoint and Manufacturing York City. all five boroughscultural districts in of New representsone of the the City’s leading non-profit industrial developer, Design Center, servesand districts include members Other collaborative. the for agent fiscal the as arts councils, ethnic museums, an artcorpo- museum, a community development development corporation, and several a cultural facilities ration, a dance company, of communities, extensive deep knowledge of the complexities others. Members have organizing civic engagement and community databases and networks, methodolo- building, youth pedagogies. Their skills include coalition and culturally-based gies development, low cost financing, community real estate development/management, community-based researchdesign, place making, plaza development, and mapping. aregoals NOCD’s improveto throughpractices members’ its and mentoring peer City’s diverse community cultural districts training. Its vision is to help New York grow and strengthen sustainable, equitable, and engaged communi- local economies, ties, and richer lives for New Yorkers. precinct of individual aesthetic appreciation…or economic development,” the Queens Museum of Art “embedded” interdisciplinary artist Bruguera Tania in a storefront in Corona, community of immigrants, many of whom are a gateway undocumented. A The League developed a web-based ‘magazine’,

ARCHITECTURAL LEAGUE OF NEW YORK YORK NEW OF LEAGUE ARCHITECTURAL WOMEN’S HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (WHEDCO) CORPORATION DEVELOPMENT ECONOMIC AND HOUSING WOMEN’S Urban Omnibus, “dedicated to defining and enriching the culture of citymaking” that site The design. a lively vehicle for discourse about socially-engaged become has features new content every covering urban issues, architecture, week, art, activism, and policy by journalists, scientists, designers, artists, and others, all intended to support “a more built environment, sustainable and equitable and foster a more stimulating and participatory urban culture.” Original and exemplary ideas, projects, proposals, and controversies are covered; there are reviews of lectures and exhibits, and roundups and updates of news; and high quality multimedia productions are posted—advancing understanding of how cities can be improved for the common good. The site remains robust The site offered long after the CIF grant was completed. regular updates about Superstorm Sandy’s effects on the city’s infrastructure coverage of and communities, emerging ideas for protecting the city from the effects of climate change in the future, community development corporation that has done work in the Bronxcommunity development corporation for two artsdecades, WHEDco incorporated the into the heart of its largest development project, Bronx use development scheduled for completion in 2015. Commons, a mixed Recognizing the Bronx’ rich musical history,will reinvigorate WHEDco in the music which will provide free music pro - Bronx through its Bronx Music Heritage Center, gramming and support the work and development of contemporary Bronx musicians at Bronx Commons. The BMHC Lab is already prefiguring the Center’s work in an incubator site, and programming music across the borough. “The social fabric in the Bronx is more Nancy Bieberman, than frayed,” said WHEDco’s executive director. “There’sBronxThe enough. not but news, good some health bottom in the at still is indicators and has the poorest The kids we congressional district in the country. work with internalize powerful negative images of the Bronx. Our goal is to erase the imagerynegative Bronx.the about feel people how change and place the of we And think music can play a huge role in doing that.” and in- practice of theory, contributing to the development of projects Examples of arts in equityformation about the role and resilience. The museum also launched, with Queens College, an MFA program in Arts an MFA with Queens College, also launched, The museum Social first such programthe Practice – -- to train young artists on the East Coast in the skills requiredartisticfor environments.community in practice are students Its develop- in Coronaing their skills on site Studios. Bruguera refers “useful art to her work as … that creates the proposal of possible solutions” to pressing and implementation problems. Corona In Studio Bruguerahas provided space rehearsals for an emerging local youth orchestra, public discussions with art world figures,weekly film series, a artistsfor consultations legal one-on-one residents,community and rights immigrant workshops, and art Serrano teach English. As the museum’s Jose classes that also artpractice “Social explained, different radically is from artconventional forms in the artistthat it does not place center of the universe; the artist at the is a facilitator artsleading among is Museum Queens The institutions synthesizer.” a listener, a … that, as a recent NY Times article suggested, “are to bring [social grappling with how the case that it can be appreciatedpractice] within museum walls and make along with paintings, sculpture and other more tangible works.”

EVALUATION OF THE ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION PROGRAM NYC CULTURAL INNOVATION FUND 48 EVALUATION OF THE ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION PROGRAM NYC CULTURAL INNOVATION FUND 49 Fractured Atlas is a national organization that provides a range Creative Time received two awards, both supporting projects that FRACTURED ATLAS FRACTURED CREATIVE TIME CREATIVE of supporting services to artists arts and organizations. It has developed a complex understanding of how the ‘ecology’ of the arts is embedded within communities, cities and regions. In 2006, Fractured Atlas held a series of symposia on the role of the arts in economic development and strategies for community sustainability in Williamsburg, Brooklyn. It found that artists and other community members were panicked about spiraling real residents estate prices; longtime were mistrustful of the artists who had moved in; local Latino artists resented the attention showered on the newcomers; artistsof majority a and disaffectedpolitically felt rapid of face the in powerless and change. Fractured Atlas’ CIF project, Place+Displaced, aimed at fostering dialogue and alliances between artists and residents at risk of displacement by creating a picture of and in-depth analysis of why Occupy Sandy—an all-volunteer effortOccupy Sandy—an analysis of why and in-depth of led by veterans Street—was such an effectiveOccupy Wall relief initiative. had internationalhad organization’sThe scope. award 2008 supported re-imaginingthe of artists’ residencies from retreats from the pressures of daily life where artists can reflectfocus, develop, and on their work to international with “burning engagement questions”. Creative Time has provided financial and other supports for selected artists residencies”“global do to artists when six since 2010, explored “burning in questions” environmental four continents. Maya Lin investigated communities spanning - degrada in 12 countries as she preparestion and species extinctions to create dis- the last in her in Haiti as she explored memorials. Swoon helped build housing tinguished series of how artists that have suffered can contribute to communities catastrophic losses. K8 Hardyaffected examined how gay liberation movements have feminist and lesbian art America. Creative making in Latin Time the project has sustained beyond the CIF grant period, and artists who will do global residencies in 2013 include: Theaster Gates, who will explore the potential of creating an economically viable creative work with contemporaryin Haiti by “infusing local fiber crafts who design;” Suzanne Lacy, and Columbia, exploring the relationwill work with indigenous people in Ecuador - ships between activism, service, arts and will practice; and Naeem Mohaiemen, who Netherlands to exploretravel to Bangladesh, Pakistan, and the of hope “the paradox” and utopian movements in the face repression and the likelihood of failure. Aiming to address the “absence of artists’ in mainstream voices” media, Creative Time’s 2010 CIF award supported Creative Time Reports Artists (originally on the artistsgives which News), opportunitiestravel researchdo to range a about write and of serious global concerns. The project’s first efforts not meet their hopes, and did Creative Time adjusted its business plan and hired an experienced editor to help artists improve frame issues, and build partnerships their writing, that will enable the Reports to reach audiences beyond the Creative Time website. The website ‘went content by more 2012, and has been populated with original than live’ in October, 70 international artists, including editorials, interviews, and video segments podcasts about breaking DOMA and gay marriage, news. Recent posts include opinions on a retrospective on Iraq ten years after the start a photographic explora- of the war, of the designs of maximum security prisons and suburbs, and dispatches fromtion Hungary, Kenya. and Venezuela,

how artshow cultureand community equitable and sustainable for strategies with connect Using participantdevelopment. action research, the project generated a rich cultural profileof Williamsburgand other neighborhoods in Brooklyn and Queens. While the project did not catalyze the strong alliances Fractured anticipated, Atlas had this effort more efficient Fractured led Atlas to develop a new, data collection and mapping software, Archipelago, mapping information which is capable about who is art,making whereis engaging with it, who Ar- it is funded? is happening, and how it chipelago captures data on nonprofit arts organizations and on for-profit arts business from It adds data from existing databases. arts funders and on other nonprofits that are ‘arts-related’. The Hewlett Foundation supported an Archipelago-based cultural mapping project of the Bay Area, software and it is being used as the for Sustain Arts at Harvard initiatives “The CIF grant leveraged multiple Hauser Center. University’s “CIF’s $150,000 led to $500,000 on a huge scale,” said Fractured Atlas’s Adam Huttler. from Hewlett and $750,000 from Harvard to develop technology we prototyped on the CIF project.”

EVALUATION OF THE ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION PROGRAM NYC CULTURAL INNOVATION FUND 50 EVALUATION OF THE ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION PROGRAM NYC CULTURAL INNOVATION FUND 51 for Breaking Ground – A for Illuminating Islam, a ten-day a Islam, Illuminating for to launch Urban Omnibus: a Broadband to launch Urban Omnibus: for Mondays with Merce, a new program of for The Chinese American Experience, a com- for Phase II Capital Master Plan and Design, for for Phase II Capital Master Plan and Design, with Creative Time and the New York City Department with Creative Time and the New York for the Bang on a Can Marchingfor the Bang on a Can Project, to take contemporary for a festival that will showcase African-American music, to be for a festival that will showcase African-American for Waterworks, to establish creative residencies- and commis for Development and Brooklyn Neighborhoods, a two-year theater for Economic Revitalization for Performing Artists, a two-year entrepre- Community Dialogue Series with Bill T. Jones, a cultural and civic dialogue about Community Dialogue Series with Bill T. contemporary with the Harlem community issues arts the range and scope of global Muslim culture festival highlighting music out of the concert the streets hall and into through the creation of mobile marching music ensembles FRIENDS OF THE HIGH LINE HIGH THE OF FRIENDS STAGE HARLEM AMERICA IN CHINESE OF MUSEUM THE CIVILIANS CIVILIANS THE FOUNDATION DANCE CUNNINGHAM FIELD THE THE BILL T. JONES / ARNIE ZANE DANCE COMPANY COMPANY DANCE ZANE ARNIE / JONES T. BILL THE ARTS THE OF MUSEUM BRONX THE SOCIETY ASIA THE / MUSIC OF ACADEMY BROOKLYN HALL CARNEGIE THE ARCHITECTURAL LEAGUE OF NEW YORK NEW OF LEAGUE ARCHITECTURAL THE BANG ON A CAN lab exploring the Atlantic Yards Project lab exploring the Atlantic Yards Channel for Architecture, Infrastructure and Environment in New York City, to Channel for Architecture, Infrastructure City, and Environment York in New most innovative ideas about the futurebring together the of the urban landscape City in New York of Parks and Recreation to create a new, large-scale public artof Parks and Recreation to create a new, commissioning program Market Tunnel for the High Line’s Chelsea an expansion of the museum and development of a moderate income residentialan expansion of the museum and development and undergroundtower greenof principles using garage parking design building curated by Jessye Norman, and a festival about the human voice, to be curated by Bobby McFerrin neurial development lab for artists live studio internet webcasts to provide public access to Merce Cunningham’s creative process prehensiveexhibition to mark the debut of its new museum historical interactive in Chinatown sions for artists of color at The Gatehouse, a new performing arts space in Harlem • • • • • • • • • • • • ANNEX 3: CULTURAL INNOVATION FUND GRANT RECIPIENTS GRANT FUND INNOVATION CULTURAL 3: ANNEX 2007 for a strategic partner- for Rhizome Events, to give for Rhizome Events, to complete the first digital cinema digital first the complete to for Massively Multiplayer: the Art Multiplayer: for Massively of Online for a new platform to showcase the hybrid creative for Science and the Arts — New Works Series, to Artsfor Science and the Works — New for the establishment of its new resident company, new residentits of establishment the for company, ballet for the premieres that challenge the convention- of two works for a creative incubator and state-of-the-art theater production to reposition artists from to partners harbingers of gentrification for a community development program that addresses the crisis for a new effort to help artists convert the power of their ideas into

lab for large mixed media artworks scale voice to artists at the leading edge of technology working ship between the Bronxorgani and CEOs for Cities, a national urban leadership - zation, to advance the creative sector of displacement in Williamsburg and Bushwick by creating a strategic team of Brooklyn artists, local residents, nonprofits, and small businesses to form a nucleus of economic development, urban revitalization, and cultural program- ming Morphoses, the Wheeldon Company, led by choreographer Christopher Company, Morphoses, the Wheeldon Wheeldon formsartists of young from the South Bronx and the arts-related entrepreneurs who support them CREATIVE TIME CREATIVE CENTER TELEVISION COMMUNITY DOWNTOWN ATLAS FRACTURED BRONX COUNCIL ON THE ARTS THE ON COUNCIL BRONX CORPORATION DEVELOPMENT ECONOMIC OVERALL BRONX BUSHWICK CHEZ 3-LEGGED DOG, INC., DOG, 3-LEGGED SOUND WILL ALARM NEW YORK CITY CENTER CENTER CITY YORK NEW MUSEUM NEW THE AT COMMUNICATIONS RHIZOME FESTIVAL SCIENCE WORLD MUSEUM OF THE MOVING IMAGE IMAGE MOVING THE OF MUSEUM works that inspireand stimulate public dialogue through social change a strategy to give artists both the gift of time and access to humanitarian networks theater in New York devoted exclusively to documentaries devoted exclusively to theater in New York Virtual online virtual to bring into the physical realm space tech- in a new Worlds, gallery exhibitions nologically-advanced in community empowerment using inclusive community cultural mapping al concert by integrating musical performance experience with choreographed of themes connecting people, history,staging and multimedia in an exploration and ideas produce and present original works that reflect the in modernrole of science life

• • • • • • • • • • • • 2008

EVALUATION OF THE ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION PROGRAM NYC CULTURAL INNOVATION FUND 52 EVALUATION OF THE ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION PROGRAM NYC CULTURAL INNOVATION FUND 53 to redesign and to bring public art instal- to create an independent, multi- to develop sustainable business for a new Harmony for a new Discount Atrium to launch an annual contemporary- ex for a creative arts district prototype o create of its kind online Studio the first for the first major historical exhibition about for the first major to inaugurate a creative laboratory and residency to pioneer open-source Web applications for the New to pioneer open-source Web to create- pathways for deeper audience en high-tech to harvest successful business and NGO capital-generation for the first city-wide biennial artsthe first city-wide for about the festival and think tank for a series of debates in which artists, scientists, business leaders, COUNCIL ON THE ARTS AND HUMANITIES FOR STATEN ISLAND, STATEN FOR HUMANITIES AND ARTS THE ON COUNCIL

LLIANCE OF RESIDENT THEATRES/NEW YORK, THEATRES/NEW RESIDENT OF LLIANCE repurpose the North Shore waterfront for the creative as an incubator sector cultural future of New York City cultural future of New York gagement by using online technologies to breaktechnologies to online using by gagement barriersdown contem- between porary and their audiences dance companies FOR THE PERFORMING ARTS PERFORMING THE FOR CENTER LINCOLN that supports permanent artists’ work spaces and commercial growth hibition program for extremely large-scale visual arts media projects and mixed models for the benefit of artists lations and performances to Times Square models that enable Off- and Off-Off-Broadway theaters to survive and thrive , SOCIETY, ASIA BKLYN, | MEDIA | ARTS BRIC THE CAPITAL, CREATIVE THE ALLIANCE FOR THE ARTS, THE FOR ALLIANCE THE INC., YORK, NEW DOWNTOWN FOR ALLIANCE TISCH SCHOOL OF THE ARTS ARTS THE OF SCHOOL TISCH UNIVERSITY YORK NEW CONSERVANCY ARMORY REGIMENT SEVENTH INC. PERFORMA ASSOCIATION MANAGEMENT DISTRICT SQUARE TIMES THE MISNOMER DANCE THEATER DANCE MISNOMER T ARTS THE FOR FOUNDATION YORK NEW SOCIETY HISTORICAL YORK NEW THE York City cultural community York Space Directory City for visual artists in New York and scholars use ancient forms of dialogue to address contemporarychallenges the role of the Spanish-speaking world in New York City’s prosperity from 1624 to the role world in New York of the Spanish-speaking the present school center for the research, design, and development of digital games program performing linking the visual, media, and arts Ticket Facility

• • • • A • • • • • • • • • • • 2009 in partnershipArtist with as Citizen for to use creative arts residencies to support for community access to an online platformaccess to an community for to design an interactive cell phone cultural map that map cultural phone cell interactive an design to , to launch Urban Design Week with an open-air Design Week , to launch Urban in partnershipin LoreCity with WingWhite A for Brushes for a convergencea for architectureof throughdance and - com to help artist entrepreneurs build assets and equity through , to spark new dance forms by incorporating extreme action , to create a VIP discount ticket service for South Bronx, for an interactive video, blog, and podcast series examining and podcast series video, blog, for an interactive for a design and public policy partnership for a design and public with Parsons The to grow Latino audiences by training micro-entrepreneurs, from for Artists on the News, which uses major media partnerships to develop a financial support structure for performing arts groups

showing proposed urban design and public art projects on real in 3-D streets an online atlas that describes the city from an environmental standpoint BOWERY ARTS & SCIENCE SCIENCE & ARTS BOWERY CITIES SUSTAINABLE FOR INSTITUTE CUNY TIME CREATIVE RINGSIDE INC. (STREB) RINGSIDE INC. CÍRCULO, TEATRO DOG 3-LEGGED POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE OF NYU, OF INSTITUTE POLYTECHNIC THEATRE PREGONES ENTERPRISE, PROJECT ARTS, THE ON COUNCIL QUEENS INSTITUTE FOR URBAN DESIGN URBAN FOR INSTITUTE INC., FOUNDATION, THEATER JOYCE THE BALLET, CITY YORK NEW SCHOOL, NEW THE HERE ARTS CENTER, ARTS HERE empanada vendors to beauty-shop owners, to become sales agents for cultural empanada vendors to beauty-shop owners, events Washington Heights, and East Harlem zip codes Heights, and East Harlem zip Washington the real-life survival City artists of New York challenges the Building, to project the poems of 16 culturally diverse poets onto public spaces City neighborhoods in a diverse range of New York festival celebrating the year’s innovations in architecturefestival celebrating and design to feature the perspectives of artists who have developed content regarding and expertise on the most important of the day issues transforms train into an “art the #7 express” missioning new for a set designed by architectmissioning new ballets Calatrava Santiago an artistprogram peer loan emerging art forms theater and dance combining New School to promote neighborhood-based solutions for shared public spaces modeled after the fiscal structure used by Nascar techniques such as high-wire moves and skydiving

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 2010

EVALUATION OF THE ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION PROGRAM NYC CULTURAL INNOVATION FUND 54 EVALUATION OF THE ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION PROGRAM NYC CULTURAL INNOVATION FUND 55 in partnership with for The Young Roots Series, in which for The Young in partnership Cambodian Living Arts with for Reconstruction, a teaching/interactive drama for ReGeneration, in which artists work with the for Harlem Dance Works 2.0, in which dancers and 2.0, in which Dance Works for Harlem for New York: Just Like I Picturedwhich artistsIt, in York: for New work to inaugurate Dance Hall, New York City’s first permanent, inaugurate Dance Hall, New York to for a partnership between Pratt Center for Community Devel- to develop New York’s first theater focused on micro-financed national to develop New York’s to develop an Innovation Lab for New York City arts organizations to Lab for New York to develop an Innovation for The Institute for Culture for The Institute for in the Service to of Community Sustainability, the Brooklyn Arts Council to develop the Soul of Brooklyn, a tourism initiative designed to brand Brooklyn as a experi- destination for a unique and authentic ence of the African diaspora to stage the first multi-disciplinary festival of Cambodian arts in the and international digital cinema from under-represented countries, supporting films that defy standardmodels and launching premieres distribution of rare and youth-produced films Queens community to create art that explores the connections between immigra- tion, urbanization, cultural vitality and sustainability in which the audience conducts green retrofits on the theater space over the course of the play’s run opment and ’s Initiative for Art,for Initiative Institute’s Pratt and opment to Change Social and Community develop visual and performance art to complement urban communities’ efforts to embrace sustainable practices formalize a learning community aroundin the arts innovation grand-scale, non-proscenium dance space, which will include the final perfor - mance by Merce Dance Cunningham young masters of Afro-Caribbean hip-hop, rock music add elements of jazz, and reggaeton in collaborations that eschew national distinctions conduct research on all the ways that arts and culture operate in urban economies, in order to support interventions cultural and civic activism and policy PARK AVENUE ARMORY AVENUE PARK INSTITUTE PRATT MUSEUM OF CONTEMPORARY AFRICAN DIASPORAN ARTS DIASPORAN AFRICAN CONTEMPORARY OF MUSEUM ARTS THE FOR FOUNDATION YORK NEW SCIENCE OF HALL YORK NEW THE FOUNDRY THEATRE THEATRE FOUNDRY THE CULTURE AND ARTS THE FOR CENTER HOSTOS COMPANY WOW INTERNATIONAL EMCARTS ART EXIT DANCE THEATRE OF HARLEM HARLEM OF THEATRE DANCE choreographers to create with non-dancers collaborate new works with community-based and social justice organizationssocial community-based and with to collaboratively develop dialogue programming and new musical theater works DEMOS

• • • • • • • • • • • • to develop a city-wide network to partner with The Majora Carter in partnership with Bronx of the Museum to develop a design clinic that helps community to develop a design clinic that helps to explore develop creative and approaches to to utilize behavioral science for a stakeholder-en- to bring to life New York City’s hidden to bring to life New visual history York to produce, market and distribute high definition and to launch Studio Corona, to launch residency a artists embedding to launch One Big City a series of public events createdto launch One Big City a series of public collabora- to host Dancing in the Streetsthe in Dancing to host residencecompany in as a work and to investigate the overlap between the creative, health and sustainabil-

together with their community to develop a performancetogether with their community to develop the series illuminating South Bronx’s cultural legacy of NaturallyOccurring Districts inCultural partnership Artswith Community + Change, Fourth Arts Block, El Museo del Barrio, El Puente, NY Chinatown History Project, Museum of Art, Queens and others ity practices of their Southside Williamsburg community Arts and Made Event to presentworks of public visual art focused on environmen- tal themes tively by New York City and international artists visiting tively by New York engaging with and re- City’s diaspora communities, presented at local cultural sponding to New York venues organizationsdemystify and visualize complex urban issues to GROUNDSWELL COMMUNITY MURAL PROJECT MURAL COMMUNITY GROUNDSWELL THEATER DANCE MISNOMER gagement program for NYC’s performing arts organizations in partnership with strategy and marketing firm Orcasci CHIMPANZEE PRODUCTIONS CHIMPANZEE ASSOCIATION FILMS DANCE PUENTE EL CENTER DESIGN AND MANUFACTURING GREENPOINT CASITA MARIA CASITA ARTSLINK CEC PEDAGOGY URBAN FOR CENTER RANDALL’S ISLAND SPORTS FOUNDATION SPORTS ISLAND RANDALL’S MUSIC OF ACADEMY BROOKLYN QUEENS MUSEUM OF ART OF MUSEUM QUEENS in the heart and, in the United States diverse community of the most ethnically in partnership Masters of Fine Art to develop a College, CUNY, with Queens in Social Practice serving local artists, organizations, community-based and audiences Group for youth, artists and other community members to identify transportation- relatedconcerns the South Bronx in and recommendpolicy and design, signage solutions with the Department of Transportation using personal photographic archives family through and stories the interactive One Family project City, Digital Diaspora Family Reunion: One 3D films of NYC dance companies’ performances in partnershipTenduTV with

• • • • • • • • • • • • 2011

EVALUATION OF THE ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION PROGRAM NYC CULTURAL INNOVATION FUND 56 EVALUATION OF THE ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION PROGRAM NYC CULTURAL INNOVATION FUND 57 to map a historic and to provide profession- for development of a new model in partnershipMary with a Miss Studio for in partnershipwith OurGoods to expand to build an online forum that allows the public which is the re-imaginingwhich the Billof Jones/Arnie Zane T. in partnership with Institute for Sustainable to facilitate the development of new approaches and markets to leverage their brand and intellectual propertyto leverage their brand and intellectual to secure sus- fiscally sponsored by Fund for the City of New York, to offerYork, to Assets for fiscally sponsored City of New by Fund for the for their collaboration with a series of NYC artsfor their collaboration with a series of NYC organizations to support POLITICS al mentoring to New York Latino/a and Native writers, producers and Native writers, Latino/a directors and of to New York al mentoring public art of Broadway installation along the length sustain- that makes the city’s to citizens at streetability initiatives tangible level through collaborations between the artist, scientists and the community and train performance-based political artistsand share to develop new work for wearable technology, combining NYC’s rising technological prowesswith its for wearable technology, legacy of design and production of fashion tainable earned-income through merchandising licensing, and broadcast CARIBBEAN CULTURAL CENTER – AFRICAN DIASPORA INSTITUTE DIASPORA AFRICAN – CENTER CULTURAL CARIBBEAN ATELIER EYEBEAM BLOCK ARTS FOURTH ALLIANCE OF RESIDENT THEATRES/NEW YORK THEATRES/NEW RESIDENT OF ALLIANCE THEATER APOLLO ARTHOME, NEW YORK UNIVERSITY AND THE HEMISPHERIC INSTITUTE OF PERFORMANCE AND AND PERFORMANCE OF INSTITUTE HEMISPHERIC THE AND UNIVERSITY YORK NEW (THE FIELD) ZONE PERFORMANCE SOCIETY CONSERVATION WILDLIFE narrative and documentary projects to create new films and advance ARTS THE FOR FOUNDATION YORK NEW ARTS LIVE YORK NEW NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LATINO INDEPENDENT PRODUCERS INDEPENDENT LATINO OF ASSOCIATION NATIONAL for non-profit arts organizations in which administrative functions are delivered through a shared by its clients, allowing them to focus on the agency owned creation and presentation art of cultural tour of El Barrio through an augmented reality platform accessible via handheld personal devices OurGoods.org, online barter an network for creative people Dance Company and Theater Workshop, Dance to support a new mid-career resident artist program to develop and share their own preferred ecological climate-resilient designs for Manhattan Artists: an Individual program Development Account that supports artists’ entre- preneurial ventures Design to transform East 4th Street Cultural District into a sustainable city block, • • • • • • • • • • • • 2012 to incubate to engage traditionally un- and the Public Policy Lab to partner with to partner cultural organizations with twelve , fiscally sponsored by the Fund for the City of New to promoteto participationcivic organizing by art to Project, Tank an NYC public art launch The Water for an immersive theater experience to activate dialogue on dialogue theater experience to activate an immersive for to teach students to researchto teach students to film trends and analyses to to partner Corpo- Assistance with The Industrial and Technology

York, to team artists,York, to workers, immi- advocates, and technologists with low-wage grants, and youth to produce vibrant stories about NYC and educational institutions to produce a retrospective of the life’s work of Sekou Sundiata, bringing a fresh look at his artistry and legacy to audiences citywide the NYC Department of Housing Preservation and Development to empower NYC residents as co-designers and co-producers of housing services workshops in local coin-operated laundromatsworkshops in local coin-operated partners with community including University and Rada Film Majora Carter Lab, New York and Hometown Security Group WORD ABOVE THE STREET THE ABOVE WORD PARSONS THE NEW SCHOOL FOR DESIGN FOR SCHOOL NEW THE PARSONS WAREHOUSE ANN’S ST. CORPORATION DEVELOPMENT ECONOMIC AND HOUSING WOMEN’S MUSEUM OF CONTEMPORARY AFRICAN DIASPORAN ARTS DIASPORAN AFRICAN CONTEMPORARY OF MUSEUM PRODUCTIONS INTERNATIONAL MAPP HOUSE PRODUCTION PEOPLE’S GHETTO FILM SCHOOL FILM GHETTO HARVESTWORKS PROJECT LAUNDROMAT THE using the artsusing the the means to share and as as a tool for engagement lessons learned with the rest of NYC initiative to raise awareness of and activate dialogue about the global water crisis a cross-cultural performance series of emerging and established artists at key a locations across the Bronx before settling at the Bronx Center, Music Heritage new community hub in a mixed-used affordable housing development the crime of human sex trafficking derserved arts communities by bringing programming to public housing better develop their creativebetter develop their and production skills ration to develop artists’ innovations into entrepreneurial technological ventures

• • • • • • • • • •

EVALUATION OF THE ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION PROGRAM NYC CULTURAL INNOVATION FUND 58 EVALUATION OF THE ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION PROGRAM NYC CULTURAL INNOVATION FUND 59 Organizational issues? Issues for the arts in general? How does the concept of resilience relate to culture arts? and the What needs to be made more resilient,and how would that work? How does the concept of equity relate to culture and the arts? What needs to be made more equitable and how can that happen? the CIF framework? How do you How do you think about innovation within think about innovation with respect to culture? Let’s start at the beginning of your CIF project: What issues were you attempting to addressWhy were though the initiative? they compelling to you? a. b. What is your role at the Rockefeller Foundation and what has been your relation- ship to the Cultural Innovation Fund (CIF)? in your view? What has been the purpose of the CIF, What have been the program’s to date? Any disap- distinctive accomplishments pointments or areas where you feel the program can improve? How does the CIF relate to the primary Rockefeller goals and strategies of the Foundation – promoting resilience, equity and innovation? a. b. c. Are there better support ways the CIF could primary the Rockefeller Foundation’s goals and strategies going forward? AreasFocus Foundation’s Rockefeller the to value add CIF the might How (Eco- to systems, Livelihoods, Health and Cities)? How might the CIF be adjusted enhance that value? con- Given your knowledge and work within the Rockefeller Foundation and this versation, do you have any thoughts or recommendations for improving the CIF? Any other comments or observations? 1. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. ANNEX 4: EVALUATION INSTRUMENTS EVALUATION 4: ANNEX CIF Grantee Interview Protocol The Rockefeller Foundation StaffThe Rockefeller Interview Protocol The Evaluation Department Foundation has hired of the Rockefeller Helicon Collab- Fund. As partan evaluation of the Cultural Innovation orative to conduct of this as- sessment, we are interviewing staff the Rockefeller Foundation members that have knowledge of the program and potential. These and insights about its development interviewswill be attributed to you in our confidential and nothing you say will be report to the Rockefeller Foundation. your time and thoughts with us. Thank you for sharing And issues for NYC or your community in NY? for NYC or your community And issues For your organization? For the arts? in NY? For NYC or your community and our organization? You particular community or NYC (as appropriate)?Your The arts community? What role did stumbles, mistakes, and failures play in the learning? What are you hoping for in the future? the organization? To your community or NYC? To c. made progressHave you around achieved so far? What have you those issues? Where are you struggling? if the project (Or achieve what is complete, did you you’d hoped for?) of work prior to the CIF award,Did you do this kind this and would you have done project, or this kind of project, award? even without the CIF How is (was) the project innovative? a. b. c. learnedyou have What from project, your lessons those have ways what in and changed, or influenced • • • • • benefits that have flowed Can you identify tangible and intangible the from project? • • Do you think the arts play a role equity and social change? If yes, in advancing how so? Further, of your project did you conceive as a social change initiative? Has your project made (or will it make) your organization stronger and more resilient? How? What is the potential of your CIF project going forward? Are to continue you likely the project support after the Rockefeller Foundation ends? (Or if the grant period is complete, what has happened to the effort?) What are your next steps? Can you imagine systemic ways to overcome the obstacles to sustaining the work you are doing (did) in your CIF project? the CIF well-managed, from your point of view; was the Rockefeller Founda- Was tion respectfulit take a real to your ideas; did interest in understanding the work? How could program improved? management be

2. 3. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 4. National Leader Interview Protocol Createdannual cycle of grant making. Fromon an Fund operates the CIF in 2007, 2007-2012 a total of 99 grants were awarded for projects for a total to 86 grantees

EVALUATION OF THE ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION PROGRAM NYC CULTURAL INNOVATION FUND 60 EVALUATION OF THE ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION PROGRAM NYC CULTURAL INNOVATION FUND 61 Any others that are related or, perhaps, use differentAny others that are related or, language for the same ideas? in the arts?Others that focus on issue-based work Do you believe that the arts contribute to increased equity and resilience in our society? How? What kinds of artistic practices are,from greatest your perspectives, showing the goals of equity and resilience?potential to advance the Rockefeller Foundation’s Can you cite any particular philanthropic programs that already support that work? a. Have you seen any exemplary artistic practice that addresses any of the four has chosen to focus: transformingissues on which the Rockefeller Foundation cities; revaluing cite any ecosystems; sustainable livelihoods; health? Can you philanthropic programs that support that work? a. Most of the projects the Rockefeller Foundation supported through were the CIF might magnify their policies that strategies or you imagine small-scale. Can fairly impact or influence? In what other domains can the arts contribute to efforts towards greater equity and resilience? How? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. expenditure The projects of over $16m. were address expected to and cultural civic create pro innovative new - cultural vitality, expand City, issues pertinent to New York or supportgramming, partnerships.multi-sectoral new the means by of is one CIF Foundation supportswhich the Rockefeller innovation. to integrate the princi- focus of the Fund has evolved over time The rationale and ples of more equitable growth resilience and and vulnerable populations. In for poor that the Rockefeller Foundation believed and purpose of the CIF, evolving the focus opportunities:concomitant of advantage take could CIF at attendance of rates As 1) formaldecrease,events cultural informal participation increases; Creative2) expres - influencing emotionally, a communication tool that moves people sion can function as producersstakeholders; 3) Cultural outputs that can be monetized – in turn have this as risk capital. income can be used Questions: SOURCES Portfolio analysis, grantee interviews, the Rockefeller the Rockefeller grantee interviews, analysis, Portfolio Foundation staff interviews) the Rockefeller grantee interviews, analysis, Portfolio Foundation staff interviews) portfolio analysis Foundation staff interviews, The Rockefeller portfolio analysis Foundation staff interviews, The Rockefeller the national interviews, grantee interviews, analysis, Portfolio Foundation staff interviews) Rockefeller portfolio analysis, Foundation staff interviews, The Rockefeller Foundation Center national interviews, grantee interviews, review synthesis national Foundation staff interviews, The Rockefeller interviews grantee interviews, Center Foundation Foundation staff interviews, The Rockefeller review synthesis Foundation staff interviews The Rockefeller size of grant type of organization funded purpose of grant type of innovation geographic location target population Categorize by year and in aggregate • • • • • • Number of grants and grant dollars by Examine administrative costs (staff, panel, etc) relative to grant budget Examine program management in terms of efficiency and effectiveness Examine panel process to program and its contribution success • Sort grants by intention (as defined by grantees). Map to the Rockefeller Founda- resilience, social change tion goals – equity, 1. Quantitative • • • • Grantee Portfolio Review

2. Qualitative QUESTION

How effective has the CIF been in achieving the aims of the has the CIF been in achieving How effective Fund and supporting Foundation? the goals of the Rockefeller Has the CIF improved the lives of poor and vulnerable people in the lives Has the CIF improved for whom, and how? In what ways, or indirectly? directly NYC efficiently? been used more have time and resources Could of CIF of managing the annual cycle the transaction costs Are gains made? grants worth the overall of the than the sum value greater Does the CIF portfolio have gains confined to individual grants? or are parts, the lessons of CIF? What are How should these lessons inform the strategy and future Foundation and practice of the Rockefeller cultural innovation and social change? resilience its work on equity, to the new Focus Areas How might the CIF add value Health, Advance Livelihoods, Securable Ecosystems, (Revalue Cities)? Transforming to better align with the How should the CIF portfolio evolve Foundation? work of the Rockefeller Portfolio Analysis

EVALUATION OF THE ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION PROGRAM NYC CULTURAL INNOVATION FUND 62 EVALUATION OF THE ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION PROGRAM NYC CULTURAL INNOVATION FUND 63 Categorize strategies used by grantees. strategies used by Categorize key resultsSummarize of grantees. relationshipIdentify in populations vulnerable or poor benefiting policy public to NYC the objectives of their to which the grantees have achieved Assess the extent grants resilience, social Identify organizationsgoals – equity, to key linked and strategies change, other strategies acrossIdentify common innovation the portfolio innovations in approachIdentify distinctive or practice – whereIdentify cases of leverage triggered CIF other results the grantee for • • • • • • • •