Comparison of Metropolitan Detroit and the Twin Cities Region: Part 1 – Art and Culture Funding Streams

1.0 Introduction

Comparisons of art and culture funding between similar geographical regions typically emphasize the relative magnitude of funding. In this report, we compare art and culture funding between Metro Detroit and the Metro Twin Cities, not just on the relative scale of funding but also on the nature of the funding streams. Encoded within the funding streams are structural factors such as how flexible the funding is, what types of people are involved in allocating the funding, and how transparent the process is. Collectively, these factors significantly impact the investment strategy and, ultimately, the funding effectiveness.

The Twin Cities Region is a good reference point for this study because all the indicators point to a remarkably successful art and culture ecosystem. For example, in the recent “State of the Arts 2024” survey, the Twin Cities ranked the 5th most vibrant large community (the highest-ranked metro area outside of the East and West Coast), and Minnesota ranked the 4th most vibrant state for the arts (the highest-ranked state outside of the East Coast). By comparison, Metro Detroit was unranked, and the State of Michigan ranked 26th most vibrant state. Furthermore, Minnesota has implemented a state-wide “Arts Dashboard,” which shows impressive statistics such as “97% (of) Minnesotans .. believe the arts have a positive effect on Minnesota’s quality of life,” “93% (of) Minnesota employers .. say that a vibrant arts sector is important to the success of their businesses,” and “91% Minnesotans .. use arts to improve their health and well-being.”

The Twin Cities is also a good comparison point because Minnesota has a very different funding structure from Michigan, with a well-funded State Arts Board that involves input from a diverse cross-section of arts professionals in a relatively transparent process. By comparison, Michigan’s funding structure relies on a patchwork of public and philanthropic funders with frequently opaque processes and, as a previous study has shown, decision-makers with limited real-world experience of cultural production.

1.1 Methodology

The Detroit Metro area is assumed to consist of Macomb, Oakland, and Wayne Counties. According to the 2023 census figures, the total population is estimated to be 3.89M. The Twin Cities Metro area is assumed to consist of Hennepin, Ramsey, Anoka, Washington, Dakota, Scott, and Carver counties. According to the 2023 census figures, the total population is estimated to be 3.16M.

The funding streams are mapped in three steps.

The state-level funding is mapped (including federal contributions), and the component that flows through to the Metropolitan regions is determined.
The State level funding is combined with other public funding (at the Federal, County, and City level)
The total public funding is combined with ongoing philanthropic financing (specifically focused on that Metropolitan region) to determine the total ongoing public and philanthropic funding.

State-level funding is chosen as the starting point because of the centrality of Minnesota’s State Arts Board in art and culture funding. Michigan’s Art and Culture Council (MACC) is roughly comparable to the State Art Board, but MACC also funds the Michigan Humanities Council, which is approximately equivalent to Minnesota’s Center for the Humanities. In addition, MACC funds historical societies and museums, whereas in Minnesota, such funding falls under the Minnesota Historical Society.

In simple terms, MACC performs a state-funding role equivalent to the State Art Board, the Minnesota Center for Humanities, and part of the Minnesota Historical Society.

To perform an “apples to apples” comparison between the relative scope of MACC and the Minnesota State Arts Board, (i) funding for historical societies and historical museums is removed from the list of MACC grants, and (ii) the remaining MACC funding is equated to the combination of funding for the Minnesota State Art Board and the Minnesota Center for the Humanities.

Wherever possible, the analysis considers data from from FY2024. Where this data is not yet available, the latest available data is used. The start and end points of FY2024 may vary depending on the organization, but achieving exact synchronization on calendar dates is very hard to achieve, and since this analysis is examining ongoing funding streams, this approximation is unlikely to change the conclusions significantly.

2.0 State Level Funding and flow through to Metropolitan Area

2.1 Minnesota / Twin Cities Metropolitan Region

Minnesota’s major source of public art and culture funds is the “Legacy” state sales tax, which finances the Arts & Culture Heritage Fund (as well as other environmental and outdoor initiatives – not shown). The Arts & Culture Heritage Fund, in turn, finances the State Arts Board, the Minnesota Center for the Humanities, the Minnesota Historical Society, and various other initiatives. The State Arts Board also receives ongoing funding from Minnesota’s general fund and the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) through Federal/State partnership funding.

Following the end of the pandemic, 2024 coincided with a steep increase in consumer spending and hence was a “windfall” year for the sales-tax component of the State Arts Board funding, as shown in the following graphic. YOY, from 2023 to 2024, the State Arts Board’s total income grew by $11.7M ( and the total grants distributed grew by $10.6M. Whether this increase continues to 2025 (and beyond) will not be apparent until the 2025 Annual Report is published. In this report, we will use the 2024 total income and total grant figures, but where appropriate, we will state results with and without a $10.6M sales tax windfall at the state level (equal to a $7.5M windfall at the Twin Cities level.)

The Minnesota Humanities Council operates on a two-year (2024/2025) “biennium,” where more grants are disbursed in “even” years, so the ongoing funding is taken as the average of these two years. The MN Center for the Humanities also receives funding from the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) through Federal/State partnership funding. The NEH Federal/State partnership funding is allocated in overlapping 5-year grants, and the figure quoted for 2024 is calculated assuming a linear payment schedule over each five-year grant period.

Approximately $15M of the State Arts Board funding is redistributed through regional regranting councils. The Metro Regional Arts Council, consisting of the seven counties identified as the Twin Cities Metro area, receives ~$5M.

Ultimately, the Twin Cities Metro Area receives $39.1M of funding for arts and culture from the State of Minnesota, including Federal/State partnership funding.

2.2 Michigan / Metro Detroit

Michigan’s central state art and culture funding organization is the Michigan Art and Culture Council (MACC). The Michigan Strategic Fund, an economic development instrument of the State of Michigan, is MACC’s largest funder. MACC also receives funding from the NEA through a state/federal partnership.

MACC provides the only state funding that the Michigan Humanities Council receives. The Michigan Humanities Council also receives funding from the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) through Federal/State partnership funding. The NEH Federal/State partnership funding is allocated in overlapping 5-year grants, and the figure quoted for 2024 is calculated assuming a linear payment schedule over each five-year grant period.

MACC provides $0.8M of funding to regional regranting organizations, of which CultureSource receives $123k for the Detroit Metro area.

Ultimately, the Detroit Metro Area receives $2.4M of funding for arts and culture from the State of Michigan, including Federal/State partnership funding.

3.0 Other Sources of Public Funding for the Metro Areas

3.1 Twin Cities Metropolitan Area

In addition to the $39.1M of state funding described in Section 2.1, organizations and individuals in the Twin Cities Metro Area receive funding from the City of Minneapolis, the City of St Paul, the NEA, the NEH, and the Institute of Museum and Library Studies (IMLS). The NEA and NEH funding is granted directly to organizations in addition to the federal-state partnership funding described previously. In total, this public funding comes to $44.2M.

Also, The Minneapolis Institute of Arts (MIA) receives $19.7 through a Hennepin County property tax (the “Park Museum Fund”) administered through the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board.

Further, Public Radio and Television in the Twin Cities receive $8.4M from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

In total, organizations and individuals in the Twin Cities Metro region receive $72.2M of public funding, which is distributed to different categories of recipients, as shown in the above diagram. These categories are defined as follows:

Individuals
Grassroots Organizations (fiscally sponsored projects and small (<$100k/year) not for profits)
Medium ($100k-$1M/year) not for profits
Large (>$1M/year) not for profits
The MIA
Public radio and television
Other projects, which typically include art projects funded within an organization whose mission is broader than art and culture, (such as schools, universities, religious institutions, human services organizations, economic development organizations, etc.). It also includes $1.9M set aside by direct appropriation for a large-scale sculpture in Saint Paul.

3.2 Metro Detroit

In addition to the $2.4M of state funding shown in Section 2.2, art and culture organizations in Metro Detroit receive funding from the NEA, NEH, and IMLS (a total of $1.9M). In addition, Public Radio and Television receive $2.6M from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and the Charles H Wright Museum of African American History gets $2.6M from the City of Detroit. However, the most significant form of public funding for art and culture in Michigan is the over $35M/year that the Detroit Institute of Arts receives via a millage on the property owners of Macomb, Oakland, and Wayne Counties. The details of this millage funding are described in this previous report.

In total, organizations and individuals in the Metro Detroit region receive $45.1M of public funding, which is distributed to different categories of recipients, as shown in the above diagram.

4.0 Ongoing Philanthropic (Foundation) Funding Streams for the Metro Areas

4.1 The Twin Cities Metro Area

The following foundations have ongoing art and culture funding for the Twin Cities Metro Area:

McKnight Foundation ($7.8M) The McKnight Foundation provides funding for both individual artists (through $25,000 fellowships and a $100,000 distinguished artist award) and arts and culture organizations (through general operating support, capital improvement funding, and project awards).

Jerome Foundation ($2.7M) The Jerome Foundation provides funding for both individual artists (through $60,000, three-year fellowships) and arts organizations in Minnesota (and New York).

St Paul and Minnesota Foundation ($1.5M) The St Paul and Minnesota Foundation funds art and culture organizations in Saint Paul and upstate Minnesota through grants from the Community Connectedness and Education categories.

Minneapolis Foundation ($0.4M) The Minneapolis Foundation does not have a specific arts and culture initiative, but funds arts and culture organizations through its other initiatives including education and racial justice.

Bigelow Foundation ($0.4M) The Bigelow Foundation funds arts and culture organizations in Saint Paul and the eastern metro region.

The Mardag, Bush, and Knight Foundations (Saint Paul office) fund arts and culture projects in the Twin Cities metro area, but these are not to a significant level in 2024.

In total, organizations and individuals in the Twin Cities Metro region receive $13.4M of philanthropic (foundation) funding, which is distributed to different categories of recipients, as shown in the above diagram.

4.2 Metro Detroit

The following foundations provide ongoing art and culture funding for the Metro Detroit Area:

Knight Foundation ($4.5M/year) The Knight Foundation’s “Art & Tech” program awarded $19.5M to the following 10 organizations over a five-year period (an average of $3.9M/year): Arab American National Museum: $1 million, BULK Space: $750,000, Charles H. Wright Museum of African American History: $3 million, CultureSource: $1 million, Detroit Symphony Orchestra: $2 million, Detroit Opera: $2 million, Michigan Central: $2 million, Midtown Detroit Inc.: $2 million. Motown Museum: $4.5 million. Sphinx Organization: $1.25 million

In addition, the Knight Art+Tech expansion fund awarded $300k to eight organizations and two individuals. (Grantees were announced in late 2023). furthermore, the Knight New Work program awarded $275k to five Detroit-based artists and arts organizations for a total annual investment of $4.475M.

Seed and Bloom ($500k/year). The Gilbert Foundation, in collaboration with The Kresge Foundation, awarded $1.5M over three years (an average of $500k/year) to ten BIPOC artists to “grow their artistic practices into sustainable businesses embedded in Detroit neighborhoods.”

Kresge Artist Fellowships ($1.1M/year): in 2024, Kresge Arts in Detroit awarded 24 fellowships of $40k, 10 “Gilda” awards of $5k, and one $100k eminent artist award to artists in the Tri-County area for a total of $1.11M. This figure is an increase in funding from previous years.

Funding from Detroit Arts Support, The Community Foundation for Southeast Michigan, The Robert H Tannahill Foundation, and The Max and Marjorie Fisher Foundation is covered in an earlier report.

In total, organizations and individuals in the Metro Detroit region receive $18.1M of philanthropic (foundation) funding, distributed to different recipient categories, as shown in the above diagram.

5.0 Comparison of Total (Combined) Public and Philanthropic Funding

Overall, the Twin Cities region receives $22.5M (or 36%) more ongoing, publicly reported arts and culture support than the Metro Detroit area. Per capita, this equates to $27.1 (or 66% more) per person in the Twin Cities compared to $16.2 per person in the Metro Detroit area.

If the $7.5M “windfall” that the Twin Cities received due to a post-covid spike in sales tax (see Section 2.1) is factored out, then the difference is reduced to $15M (or 24%), and the per capita funding in the Twin Cities is reduced to $24.7 per person (52% more than Metro Detroit).

In summary, the Twin Cities receives 24%-36% more funding in absolute terms and 52%-66% more funding in per capita terms than Metro Detroit.

However, as the following graphic shows, this difference in funding levels is not evenly distributed. For example, the “grassroots” (defined as individuals, fiscally sponsored projects, small (<$100k/year) non-profits receive 383% more funding in the Twin Cities, and medium-sized non-profits (between $100k and $1M/year) receive 440% more funding. By comparison, large (>$1M/year) non-profits in the Twin Cities receive 23% less than comparable organizations in Metro Detroit (when the MIA and DIA are included).

In simple terms, Metro Detroit and the Twin Cities invest comparable sums on large non-profits, but the Twin Cities extend that funding to medium-sized non-profits and grassroots organizations, whereas Metro Detroit largely overlooks these sectors.

6.0 Fixed and Discretionary Funding

The figures in the previous sections describe the total ongoing, publicly reported funding for art and culture, and hence the funding that potentially may be used strategically with some degree of public visibility (and therefore accountability.) However, to use funds strategically, some discretion is required regarding how they are spent. Ideally, the decision-making process would engage with appropriately qualified people, take place transparently, and have the ability to respond to feedback and new conditions.

In this section, we discuss how much of the total funding available in the Twin Cities and Metro Detroit has some discretion (at the state or regional level) in its distribution. This discretionary spending contrasts with fixed funding (such as the DIA Millage, which can only fund the DIA) and federal funding (which is allocated at the federal level).

When these distinctions are applied (as shown in the image below), the Twin Cities has 240% more discretionary funding than Metro Detroit. This clearly allows the Twin Cities far more capacity to develop a coherent art and culture investment strategy than Metro Detroit and should be considered a significant factor in funding effectiveness.