cpaa evaluation: interim findings

15
CPAA evaluation: Interim findings Mark Stern and Susan Seifert Social Impact of the Arts Project University of Pennsylvania July 2006

Upload: laddie

Post on 10-Jan-2016

25 views

Category:

Documents


2 download

DESCRIPTION

CPAA evaluation: Interim findings. Mark Stern and Susan Seifert Social Impact of the Arts Project University of Pennsylvania July 2006. Elements of the assessment. Small-area analysis of grantees’ participation data Key informant interviews with those involved in CPAA - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: CPAA evaluation: Interim findings

CPAA evaluation:Interim findings

Mark Stern and Susan Seifert

Social Impact of the Arts Project

University of Pennsylvania

July 2006

Page 2: CPAA evaluation: Interim findings

Elements of the assessment

Small-area analysis of grantees’ participation data Key informant interviews with those involved in CPAA Survey of artists working or living in North Philadelphia

and Camden Survey of non-arts organizations in North Philadelphia

and Camden Monitoring partnerships

Page 3: CPAA evaluation: Interim findings

Interim report

Do high crime rates suppress cultural participation?

Did cultural participation change between 2004 and 2005?

How do grantees assess CPAA at its midpoint?

Page 4: CPAA evaluation: Interim findings

Serious crime in North Philadelphia,

1999-20040

20

40

60

80

100

120

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Outside clusters

North P hila--Central

North P hila-East

North P hila-West

North Phila--Central

North Phila-West

North Camden

South Camden

North Phila-East

Serious crimes per 1,000 residents

Under 38

38-53

53-66

66-95

Above 95

Page 5: CPAA evaluation: Interim findings

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Low estparticipation

2 3 Highestparticipation

Rest of Philadelphia

North Philadelphia

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

Page 6: CPAA evaluation: Interim findings

These data only tell us about the relationship between individuals’ cultural participation and the crime rate in their neighborhoods.

They don’t tell us whether the perception of crime in North Philadelphia and Camden discourages people from attending events in these neighborhoods.

Ironically, it is the Center City groups—not those in North Philadelphia—that are located in the higher crime neighborhoods

ORGNAME

Av serious crime percapita Neighborhood

Philadelphia Young Playwrights 448.892 Center City West

The Clay Studio 138.278 Center City East

New Freedom Theatre 131.299Poplar/Ludlow/Yorktowne

Musicopia 115.279 Center City West

Philadelphia Mural Arts Program (MAP) 111.055

Fairmount/Spring Garden

Village of Arts and Humanities 104.149 Hartranft

Taller Puertorriqueno 103.281 Fairhill

Associacion de Musicos Latino Americanos (AMLA) 90.397 Fairhill

InterAct Theatre Company 90.030 Center City West

Spiral Q Puppet Theater 77.730Belmont/Mantua/East Park

Scribe Video Center 76.429University City/Spruce Hill

Art Sanctuary 76.412 North Central

Point Breeze Performing Arts Center 48.358 Point Breeze

ArtReach, Inc. 36.754 East Falls

Page 7: CPAA evaluation: Interim findings

Did cultural participation rates change between 2004 and 2005?

Our central measure of cultural participation is based on data that grantees provided. For this analysis, we restricted ourselves to participation for which we had equivalent data in both 2004 and 2005.

Overall, we estimate that cultural participation in CPAA grantee programs increased by 22 percent between 2004 and 2005

  Individual participation  

Location   2004 2005 % change

Cluster areas-total 9.9 12.2 22.5

North Phila--Central 20.4 25.6 25.2

North Phila-East 11.7 13.8 18.0

North Phila-West 8.7 8.9 3.1

North Camden 3.2 5.2 60.4

South Camden 

3.9 

6.7 

70.8 

Page 8: CPAA evaluation: Interim findings

Help!

CPAA core goal is to increase cultural participation in North Philadelphia and Camden. Our ability to document CPAA’s success (or failure) is linked to grantees’ ability and willingness to collect accurate evidence on participation in their programs.

Caveat emptor (buyer beware)

These data must be seen as a ‘first-cut’ on participation. With successive data waves (Spring 2007 and 2008), we will have a more reliable picture of patterns of participation.

Page 9: CPAA evaluation: Interim findings

How do grantees assess CPAA at its midpoint?

• We found a sharp split in grantees’ perceptions of the effectiveness of the initiative.

• Organizations that were INSTITUTIONALLY-ORIENTED were more likely to see themselves as well-integrated in CPAA

• Organization that are COMMUNITY-ORIENTED were more likely to see themselves as less well-integrated into the initiative.

Page 10: CPAA evaluation: Interim findings

Grantees’ orientation

Community-oriented

Generally located in North Philadelphia or Camden

Usually located in African American or Latin American neighborhoods

Work directly with members of community

Institutionally-oriented

Generally, not based in North Philadelphia or Camden

Usually located in predominantly white or diverse neighborhoods

Work with schools, public housing authorities, and other nonprofit institutions

Page 11: CPAA evaluation: Interim findings

What’s working• One universal message to emerge from the interviews was

an appreciation of the Foundation’s long-term funding commitment

• Community-oriented grantees see CPAAs primary contribution as the opportunity to stabilize programs or expand upon their long-term strategies

• Institutionally-oriented grantees see CPAAs greatest contribution as providing opportunities to expand institutional partnerships, especially with schools.

• A variety of grantees expressed enthusiasm about community outreach strategies, using artists, humanities scholars, and “ambassadors” to engage community residents directly.

Page 12: CPAA evaluation: Interim findings

Some challenges:• Residents have come to see cultural programs as “free” and

resist paying even nominal fees for them

• Partnerships between large bureaucratic organizations and smaller cultural groups are often asymmetrical. Institutional rigidity, for example, has been a major barrier in the formation of a citywide Latin jazz ensemble.

• Community-oriented grantees were more skeptical about the utility of partnering:• “The partnering is fine if it makes sense,” noted one grantee.

“On the other hand, if you already have the resources, there is little point in getting someone involved just to get them involved.”

Page 13: CPAA evaluation: Interim findings

Different views of partnerships and communities• Institutionally oriented grantees see partnerships as their

primary means of reaching communities. They believe that the institutionally-based programs will have a spill-over effect on communities• “The students’ enhanced self-knowledge through the creation

of art and their sharing of that art within their families, schools, and neighborhoods will form the basis of a stronger, healthier, and more culturally enriched community.”

• Community-oriented grantees see partnerships as only one means of achieving their ends. Classes, public events, and festivals are equally important. Several said they felt pressure to accommodate institutionally-oriented grantees even though this carried real costs.

.

Page 14: CPAA evaluation: Interim findings

Perception of TCC’s role• During planning phase, TCC was an active

advocate of strategies based on building organizational capacity and institutional partnerships

• During implementation, TCC has a more circumscribed role: providing a limited amount of individual coaching and facilitating peer exchange through workshops

• Several grantees have interpreted this shift as a change in strategy: from a ‘hands on’ to a ‘hands off’ approach.

“I applaud Knight for doing something that’s so iffy. Take this money and do something with it “

Page 15: CPAA evaluation: Interim findings

For discussion

• A considerable amount of effort and expertise has been devoted to institutional partnership-building

• Relatively little attention has been devoted to strategies that use artists and ‘ambassadors’ to provide direct outreach to members of the community

• Would it make sense to provide more technical support to those grantees’ using these direct outreach strategies? If so, how should it be

organized?