Sustain Arts/SE Michigan: A Portrait of the Cultural Ecosystem

This report discusses the potential use of data in arts organizations for strategic purposes. Data currently available on the cultural sector can lead to useful insights about the increasing proliferation of small arts organizations; the almost monolithic focus of private foundations on supporting a highly select group of large, well-established arts organizations; and the fact that established arts organizations are poorly positioned to satisfy emerging consumer preferences for cultural experiences. Such insights should provoke frank discussion and galvanize field leaders to advocate appropriate actions, both in response to existing disconnects and proactively, in anticipation of coming change. The data that are now available to the field are not perfect. In fact, that's part of the story that needs to be told about the cultural sector. Systematic data collection on artists, cultural organizations, and audiences receives only a token amount of government funding. Instead, it is left largely up to private organizations to document trends in both the nonprofit and for-profit cultural arenas. This leads to multiple non-overlapping data collection strategies, making it difficult to construct a coherent picture of the field. There are gaping holes in the puzzle, and the tales we tell with existing data must be told with caution

Use of Consultants by U.S. Foundations: Results of a Foundation Center Survey

This article presents the results of a survey launched in January 2014 by Foundation Center, in collaboration with the National Network of Consultants to Grantmakers, examining use of consultants by community, corporate, and independent foundations whose annual giving totals at least $100,000. The survey asked funders to report whether they used consultants in the past two years and, if so, how frequently and for what purposes; they were also asked to report their level of satisfaction with consultants’ work. Funders that did not engage consultants in the last two years were asked why not. The survey also sought open-ended responses about working with consultants. The survey found widespread use of consultants among foundations. While the results of this study tend to emphasize the benefits – taking advantage of external expertise, allowing staff to stay focused on what they do best, bringing fresh or neutral perspectives to the work – respondents were also clear that working with consultants has its challenges

Measuring the State of Disaster Philanthropy 2015: Data to Drive Decisions

Jointly produced by Foundation Center and the Center for Disaster Philanthropy, Measuring the State of Disaster Philanthropy 2015: Data to Drive Decisions analyzes funding trends for disasters and humanitarian crises in 2013. In addition to examining U.S. foundation funding, this second annual report integrates other disaster-related funding data, including bilateral and multilateral aid, corporate giving, and online giving, to paint a more detailed picture of how institutional philanthropy is situated within the broader disaster funding landscape. Collectively, this report, along with the dashboard and mapping platform, provides donors, practitioners, and other stakeholders with in-depth information on funding flows for disasters and humanitarian crises. Explore more at disasterphilanthropy.org

Free Money: Social Meanings and Practical Implementation in Alaska's Permanent Fund Dividend Program

Alaska’s Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD) is the most significant system in the U.S. of universal cash transfers from government to individuals. As interest in unconditional cash and universal basic income is increasing throughout academia and policy, there is a need for closer examination of existing models to understand how these programs work in practice. This study contributes to filling that gap. A mixed methods study drawing from 72 in-depth interviews with Alaska residents alongside quantitative and legislative data, the dissertation provides insight into key administrative features of the program, how beneficiaries interact with it, and how it has shaped and been shaped by a distinctive Alaskan politics of resource wealth. Investigating the PFD’s eligibility criteria, access barriers, and take-up, I find that there are limits to its universality. Shedding light on the system of garnishments associated with the program, I show that these overlooked regulations serve to make the PFD less equal than it looks on paper. Analyzing qualitative data on how Alaskans spend, save, gift, or neglect their PFD money, I reveal some of the different roles the cash transfer plays in individuals’ and families’ financial lives. The findings suggest that the PFD has a limited effect on mitigating inequality or enhancing mobility, but it provides an important cash safety net for low-income working families and is valued by many as a bonus that opens up possibilities for different kinds of spending. In the final chapter, I discuss the PFD’s place in Alaskan politics, showing how it has gone from near universal support to a contentious fracturing in the last decade. I find that small government conservatives – and a less visible group of leftists and radicals – are the biggest supporters of the program, with liberals and centrists aligning to support cutting dividends back. Taken as a whole, the dissertation is relevant to economic and political sociology and the study of inequality and social welfare as well as to practitioners involved in policy implementation