What funding body do you really rate?
/ 09 October 2009 - 11:43 am
/
7 Comments
What funding body (that supports arts & culture) do you really rate? (Include web address)
What has impressed you about them?
What can we learn from them that would be useful to explore here?
Comments
The ASB Community Trusts, we rate highly. This Trust has shown bold and definitive leadership in good times and bad. It has allowed projects that have been sidelined repeatedly by the establishment i.e Govt bodies, local and central, and gives them support to have a chance to excel. In particular supporting projects with strongly aligned community outcomes.
The ASB Trusts have shown strategic commitment to the arts sector without fear or favour.
What other funding organisations can learn from them is that by working with and for the community presents opportunities for growth in the sector.
The ASB Community Trusts provide in terms of aspiration, the Barack Obama factor, of "yes we can".
The ASB Community Trust is truly interested in the arts developing and not so much in the PR value of the arts which seems to drive so much public funding towards disproportionate outcomes.
Thanks for this comment - it is great to hear what we are already doing well, as well as thinking about where we may head in the future.
We'd love to hear more from people if there are even aspects the way other funders work that you find positive. Perhaps a simple format for reporting back on the spending of a grant, more contact with the funder (or less!) etc.
Look forward to hearing more!
15 October 2009 - 11:34 AM
Mike Chunn - Play It Strange
Play It Strange believes in partnerships. The funders we rate are the ones that share our philosophy and see their support as much a contribution to making a difference in society from their strategic point of view as ours. And we are lucky that this is more often the case than not.
The ASBCT, Perry Foundation, Lion Foundation, NZCT, Southern Trust, Eureka, Mazda Foundation – what really matters to us is the interest shown in our programmes by the management and trustees of these funders as well as their understanding of our ambitions and strategies.
Play It Strange is for all young people in the entire country. It is about fostering their imagination through the craft of songwriting and musical performance so that their lives and the lives of those in their community (and at times across the nation) are enriched by the songs they write and sing. Songs that might otherwise not be heard.
Funders who understand that a rich NZ music tradition is built principally on the songs written by the people, of the people and for the people are the ones who walk the same road as such; celebrating the great songs that come to the surface. Funders that fund programmes that stimulate the imagination of young people and play a part in ensuring that creativity and originality are the pivotal driving forces that future generations will enjoy and share are the ones that are brave and visionary.
Thanks for that comment Mike, it is easy for us to focus on the money side of grantmaking and overlook the strategic issues. Especially when we deal with literally hundreds of applications each year.
I've been speaking to overseas funders and arts organisations recently, and a lot of similar comments were made about successful funding partnerships being about more than just handing over a grant.
And funding for quality youth arts programmes is definitely a topic that keeps cropping up in my conversations with people across the arts sector!
20 October 2009 - 16:37 PM
There was a programme at the State University of New York and the focus was 'innovative responses to the current funding crisis in the arts'. I couldn't find any mention of material after the event but thought it could be worth contacting
And where did I find this reference?
I found this mentioned on the blog of the NY Non-Profit Executive Directors Network and thought there may be a relationship to cultivate there...another opportunity for extended contact
There is also Microfunded arts which could be worth a look
here's another resource that could be worth a look
http://www.michiganfoundations.org/s_cmf/doc.asp?CID=335&DID=30673
another thought is that maybe the arts and creative sector could do with a similar body I don't know what the sector's appetite is an idea like that
My final thought...is the philanthropic bond issue for Canterbury University...there may be some potential for the creative sector and it seems an exciting innovation
h
Margaret Lewis
The Big Idea
margaret.lewis@thebigidea.co.nz
Artangel - http://www.artangel.org.uk/about_us
The most interesting thing about them is that they're all about the art, and have a strong belief that giving great artists autonomy to realise their projects as conceived generates a public benefit. When Creative NZ seems to see e.g. Venice as a national culture promotion opportunity, there is a real role for someone to take leadership around the art.
In that respect, the Arts Foundation www.artsfoundation.org.nz are also impressive, even if they are less hands on.
In the states, and with a more traditionally communitarian orientation, 4Culture are pretty impressive, particularly in their documentation and transparency. Sometimes funders' goals and programmes are opaque to the practising artist - I think their clarity is admirable, see their 2008 report at - http://www.4culture.org/2008/
Thanks for those links Margaret and Danny - particularly the Michigan example and 4Culture.
Will post more feedback when I have absorbed them more, but on a first look they are excellent resources. Loved your comment Danny re: the clarity of 4Culture (definitely agree on funders goals not always being clear to applicants).
The Michigan examples of pooling administrative resources were really valuable for organisations looking to maximise funding dollars.....